Part 8

“A copy of your speech on the treatment of prisoners of war has just fallen into my hands. I think the country under deep obligations to you for that speech, and for saving it from either acknowledging or practising the principle of retaliation.”

The following communication from General Robert Anderson, of the Army of the United States, who commanded at Fort Sumter when South Carolina madly fired upon that national stronghold, contains the testimony of a soldier.

“NEW YORK CITY, January 25, 1865.

“HON. CHARLES SUMNER, U. S. Senate.

“HONORED SIR,--The approbation of strangers is sometimes, I know, not unacceptable. I trust, therefore, that you will pardon me for giving vent to the promptings of my heart, in offering you my thanks for the noble, manly, and Christian sentiments which characterize your resolutions introduced in the Senate yesterday, in reference to the subject of Retaliation. No one would go farther than I would, to put down, with a vigorous and resolute hand, this most accursed Rebellion. But, in God’s name, Sir, let it be done in such a manner that those who live after us may be able to say, that, in all this time of trial, not one act was sanctioned or permitted by our Government which was not becoming us as a civilized and Christian nation. And God will bless and prosper us only as we do so act. My earnest prayer is, that He will endue our rulers with wisdom, and soon give peace and prosperity and happiness to our bleeding land.

“With the renewal of my thanks for your having so beautifully, so ably, so nobly advocated the cause of humanity, which is the cause of Christ,

“I am, Sir, with high respect, your obedient servant,

“ROBERT ANDERSON.”

In a later letter General Anderson returned to the subject:--

“The sentiments you express in your speech are such as become a Christian and a patriot. We, as a nation, are not at liberty to follow the example of men who claim to owe allegiance to a Government not recognized among nations,--the self-assumed name of which will, by God’s blessing, soon sink into oblivion.”

General Donaldson, of the Army of the Cumberland, and of the staff of the distinguished General Thomas, wrote from Nashville:--

“Though but slightly acquainted with Mr. Sumner, I trust he will allow me to tender my thanks as an American for his noble resolutions on the subject of Retaliation. They are greater than any speech, and such as a Howard might have written, had he lived in the days of the mighty crime.”

Such were some of the voices, not only from citizens, but from the Army.

ADMISSION OF A COLORED LAWYER TO THE BAR OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

MOTION IN THE SUPREME COURT, FEBRUARY 1, 1865.

John S. Rock, Esq., was a colored lawyer in Boston, who, after studying medicine, accomplished himself in the law, and visited Europe. In the hope of advancing his race and of overturning an obnoxious precedent, he formed the idea of being admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States, even during the life of Chief Justice Taney; but Mr. Sumner, to whom he applied, could not encourage him, while the author of the Dred Scott decision presided over the Court. With Mr. Chase as Chief Justice it was otherwise. Before presenting him, Mr. Sumner communicated with the Chief Justice, who undertook to sound his brethren and smooth the way. After some delay he let Mr. Sumner know that the motion might be made. It seems, that, by usage of the Court, the Chief Justice acted on the admission of counsellors without consulting the rest of the bench, and it was understood that the usage would be recognized in this case.

As only a citizen could be a counsellor of the Supreme Court, and, according to the Dred Scott decision, a colored person was not a citizen, the admission of Mr. Rock was regarded by the country as tantamount to a reversal of that decision.

* * * * *

An informal and intimate correspondence between Mr. Sumner and the Chief Justice belongs to the history of this case.

* * * * *

On the receipt of a letter from Mr. Rock, saying, “We now have a great and good man for our Chief Justice, and with him I think my color will not be a bar to my admission,” Mr. Sumner wrote to the Chief Justice, inclosing the letter.

“SENATE CHAMBER, 21st December, 1864.

“MY DEAR CHASE,--Please read the inclosed letter, and let me know what I shall do with regard to it.

“Mr. Rock is an estimable colored lawyer, who, as you will see, is cordially recommended by Governor Andrew and others in the public service. He is one of several colored lawyers in Massachusetts, who practise in all our courts, and are always received with courtesy.

“Before I came into the Senate, now several years ago, I was counsel in a case before our Massachusetts Supreme Court,[62] where one of these colored lawyers was my associate, and I remember well the very great kindness and attention with which he was received by Chief Justice Shaw and all the bench.

“I mention these things that you may see something of Mr. Rock’s title to admission to the Supreme Court of the United States.

“I know not how far the Dred Scott decision may stand in the way.

“Of course, the admission of a colored lawyer to the bar of the Supreme Court would make it difficult for any restriction on account of color to be maintained anywhere. Street cars would be open afterwards.[63]

“Ever yours,

“CHARLES SUMNER.”

The following note, written in pencil, and sent to Mr. Sumner at his seat in the Senate, was the prompt answer:--

“SUPREME COURT ROOM, December 21, 1864.

“DEAR SUMNER,--I will confer with the Judges on Saturday, which is consultation day. It is not likely that any, or any serious, objection will be made.

“Yours faithfully,

“S. P. CHASE.”

Not hearing from the Chief Justice, Mr. Sumner sent the following reminder:--

“_In re_ John S. Rock, Counsellor at Law, Massachusetts.

“What say you?

“C. S.”

“Senate Chamber, Thursday, 15th January, 1865.”

This was returned with the following reply, written in pencil on the same paper:--

“Nothing at present,--except not forgotten.

“S. P. C.”

Another note, written also in pencil, opened the door.

“January 23, 1865.

“DEAR SUMNER,--You can make your motion for Mr. Rock’s admission at any time which suits your convenience.

“Yours ever,

“S. P. CHASE.”

Mr. Rock, who was waiting in Boston, appeared February 1st, and was at once presented by Mr. Sumner. The few formal words which passed on this occasion are not without interest.

* * * * *

As soon as the judges had taken their seats, Mr. Sumner rose, and, with Mr. Rock standing by his side, said:--

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT,--

I ask leave to present John S. Rock, Esq., a Counsellor at Law of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, and now move that he be admitted as a Counsellor of this Court.

The Chief Justice bowed, and said:--

“Let him come forward and take the oath.”

The oath was then administered by Mr. Middleton, Clerk of the Court. At the same time, on motion of Mr. Sumner, Francis V. Balch, Esq., of Boston, his private secretary, was also admitted.

* * * * *

This incident, marking a stage in the battle for Equal Rights, was extensively noticed at home and abroad. It occurred on the day after the final passage in the House of Representatives of the Constitutional Amendment abolishing Slavery, and the correspondent of the _Boston Journal_ remarked the association of the two events.

“The Slave Power, which received its constitutional death-blow yesterday in Congress, writhes this morning on account of the admission of a colored lawyer, John S. Rock, of Boston, as a member of the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States.… The rage depicted in the countenances of some of the old Hunkers present at this invasion of their citadel beggars description.”

The correspondent of the _New York Tribune_ announced the event as “The Dred Scott Decision buried in the Supreme Court,” and then broke forth enthusiastically:--

“O augustly simple funeral _cortège_! O dead, wrapped in the cerements that the divine hand of Revolution folds its victims with, augustly exciting in your stormy birth, transcendently mischievous in your little life!--Senator Charles Sumner and Negro Lawyer John S. Rock the pall-bearers,--the room of the Supreme Court of the United States the Potter’s Field,--the corpse the Dred Scott decision!

“Through the door that was too narrow to freely let out the bearers that bore Charles Sumner’s inanimate form from the Senate Chamber, where he had been stricken down by the assassins of the Slave Power, Charles Sumner to-day marched back, leading a negro by the hand, and, standing upon the very spot that had been stained with his blood for demanding freedom and equality for the blacks in America, demanded of the Supreme Court of the United States to enroll among its members an African lawyer, and to license him to practise at its bar. The black man was admitted.”

Then mentioning the motion of Mr. Sumner, the same correspondent says:--

“The grave to bury the Dred Scott decision was in that one sentence dug, and it yawned there, wide open, under the very eyes of some of the judges who had participated in the juridical crime against Democracy and Humanity. The assenting nod of the great head of the Chief Justice tumbled in the corse and filled up the pit, and the black counsellor of the Supreme Court got on to it and stamped it down, and smoothed the earth for his walk to the rolls of the Court.

“… A few lawyers of the old _régime_ looked on, stunned somewhat, but rapidly growing in wisdom, and mixing deference to destiny with their instinctive reluctance to this revolutionary intrusion.”

Mr. Cobden, writing from England, also associated this event with the Constitutional Amendment. In a letter shortly before his much lamented death, he said:--

“I feel it a pleasant duty to give you my best congratulations on the recent proceedings within and without your Halls of Congress. The vote on the Amendment of the Constitution was a memorable and glorious event in your history. Another incident--that of your introduction of a colored man to the Supreme Court--was hardly less interesting. In all these proceedings at Washington _you_ ought to be allowed to indulge the feelings of a triumphant general. You served as a volunteer in the forlorn hope, when the battle of Emancipation seemed a hopeless struggle. _Your_ position within the Halls of Congress was very different from that of the agitators out of doors, meritorious as were their labors. I have served in both capacities, and know the difference between addressing an audience of partisans at a public meeting and a hostile parliamentary assembly.… I heartily congratulate you.”

Doubtless the admission of a colored lawyer to the Supreme Court helped prepare the way for admission of his race to the rights of citizenship, and especially the right to vote.

PARTICIPATION OF REBEL STATES NOT NECESSARY IN RATIFICATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS.

DECLARATORY RESOLUTIONS IN THE SENATE, FEBRUARY 4, 1865.

Concurrent Resolutions declaring the rule in ascertaining the three fourths of the several States required in the ratification of a Constitutional Amendment.

Whereas Congress, by a vote of two thirds of both Houses, has proposed an Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting Slavery throughout the United States, which, according to existing requirement of the Constitution, will be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States; and

Whereas, in the present condition of the country, with certain States in arms against the National Government, it becomes necessary to determine what number of States constitutes the three fourths required by the Constitution: Therefore,

_Resolved by the Senate_ (the House of Representatives concurring), That the rule followed in ascertaining the two thirds of both Houses proposing the Amendment to the Constitution should be followed in ascertaining the three fourths of the several States ratifying the Amendment; that, as in the first case the two thirds are founded on the simple fact of representation in the two Houses, so in the second case the three fourths must be founded on the simple fact of representation in the Government of the country and the support thereof; and that any other rule establishes one basis for the proposition of amendment and another for its ratification, placing one on a simple fact and the other on a claim of right, while it also recognizes the power of Rebels in arms to interpose a veto upon the National Government in one of its highest functions.

_Resolved_, That all acts, executive and legislative, in pursuance of the Constitution, and all treaties made under the authority of the United States, are valid to all intents and purposes throughout the United States, although certain Rebel States fail to participate therein, and that the same rule is equally applicable to an Amendment of the Constitution.

_Resolved_, That the Amendment of the Constitution prohibiting Slavery throughout the United States will be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution, whenever ratified by three fourths of the States _de facto_, exercising the powers and prerogatives of the United States under the Constitution thereof.

_Resolved_, That any other rule, requiring the participation of the Rebel States, while illogical and unreasonable, is dangerous in its consequences, inasmuch as all recent Presidential proclamations, including that of Emancipation, also all recent Acts of Congress, including those creating the national debt and establishing a national currency, and also all recent treaties, including the treaty with Great Britain for the extinction of the slave-trade, have been made, enacted, or ratified, respectively, without any participation of the Rebel States.

_Resolved_, That any other rule must tend to postpone the great day when the prohibition of Slavery will be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution of the United States; but the rule herewith declared will assure the immediate ratification of the prohibition, and the consummation of the national desires.

On motion of Mr. Sumner, these resolutions were printed and laid on the table. Besides hastening the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, it was hoped that they would help prepare the way for Reconstruction.

APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES ACCORDING TO VOTERS.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, FEBRUARY 6, 1865.

In the Senate, February 6, 1865, Mr. Sumner submitted the following Amendment to the Constitution, which, on his motion, was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union according to the number of male citizens of age having in each State the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature. The actual enumeration of such citizens shall be made by the census of the United States.

This Amendment was a first attempt to meet the new exigency from the abolition of Slavery. One of two alternatives was open: the extension of suffrage to the new-made freedmen by the action of Congress, which Mr. Sumner insisted was the just course; or the apportionment of Representatives according to voters, which would make it for the interest of a State to extend the franchise. Without one of these measures the political power of the former slave-masters would be enlarged by Emancipation.

This subject occupied much attention at the next session of Congress.

RAILROAD USURPATION IN NEW JERSEY.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON A BILL TO REGULATE COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES, FEBRUARY 14, 1865.

April 25, 1864, Mr. Sumner asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to bring in the following joint resolution, which was read twice, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

“A Joint Resolution to facilitate commercial, postal, and military communication among the several States.

“Whereas the Constitution of the United States confers upon Congress, in express terms, the power to regulate commerce among the several States, to establish post-roads, and to raise and support armies: Therefore,

“_Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled_, That every railroad company in the United States, whose road is operated by steam, its successors and assigns, be, and is hereby, authorized to carry upon and over its road, connections, boats, bridges, and ferries, all freight, property, mails, passengers, troops, and Government supplies, on their way from any State to any other State, and to receive compensation therefor.”

May 12th, Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, from the Committee, reported it without amendment.

Meanwhile the House of Representatives had under consideration a bill to declare certain roads military roads and post-roads, and to regulate commerce, which was much debated, when, on motion of Mr. Wilson, of Iowa, Mr. Sumner’s joint resolution, without the preamble, and with the title, “A Bill to regulate commerce among the several States,” was adopted as a substitute, and the bill thus amended passed the House,--Yeas 63, Nays 58.

In the Senate the bill was elaborately discussed, especially by Mr. Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland; but its friends were never able to press it to a vote, and it expired with the session. In one of these efforts Mr. Sumner said: “There are two ways of killing a measure: one is by voting it down; the other is by postponing it until you lose an opportunity of voting on it; and the latter is the policy of certain Senators now.”

March 3, 1865, failing to obtain a vote on the bill, Mr. Sumner moved it as an amendment to the Post-Route Bill, but without success.

February 14th, while the bill was under consideration, Mr. Sumner spoke.

MR. PRESIDENT,--The question before us concerns the public convenience to a remarkable degree. But it concerns also the unity of this Republic. Look at it in its simplest form, and you will confess its importance. Look at it in its political aspect, and you will recognize how vital it is to the integrity of the Union itself. On one side we encounter a formidable Usurpation with all the pretensions of State Rights, hardly less flagrant and pernicious than those which ripened in bloody rebellion. On the other side are the simple and legitimate claims of the Union under the Constitution of the United States.

Thus stands the question at the outset: public convenience and the Union itself in its beneficent powers on the one side; public inconvenience and all the discord of intolerable State pretensions on the other side.

The proposition on its face is applicable to all the States throughout the Union, and in its vital principle concerns every lover of his country. But it cannot be disguised that the interest it has excited in the other House, and also in the Senate, must be referred to its bearing on the railroads of New Jersey. Out of this circumstance springs the ardor of opposition,--perhaps, also, something of the ardor of support. Therefore pardon me, if I glance one moment at the geographical position of this State, and its Railroad Usurpation in the name of State Rights.

Look on the map, or, better still, consult your own personal experience in the journey from Washington to New York, and you will find that New Jersey lies on the great line of travel between the two capitals of the country, political and commercial. There it is, directly in the path. It cannot be avoided, except by circuitous journey. On this single line commerce, passengers, mails, troops, all must move. In the chain of communication by which capital is bound to capital,--nay, more, by which the Union itself is bound together,--there is no single link of equal importance. Strike it out, and where are you? Your capitals will be separated, and the Union itself loosened. But the evil sure to follow, if this link were struck out, must follow also in proportionate extent from every interference with that perfect freedom of transit through New Jersey which I now ask in behalf of commerce, passengers, mails, and troops.

Such is the geographical position of New Jersey. And on this highway pernicious pretensions are set up which can be overthrown only by the power of Congress. The case is plain.

New Jersey, in the exercise of pretended State rights, has undertaken to invest the Delaware and Raritan Canal and the Camden and Amboy Railroad and Transportation Companies with unprecedented prerogatives. These are the words of the Legislature: “It shall not be lawful, at any time during the said railroad charter, to construct any other railroad or railroads in this State, without the consent of the said companies, which shall be intended or used for the transportation of passengers or merchandise _between the cities of New York and Philadelphia_, or to compete in business with the railroad authorized by the Act to which this supplement is relative.”[64] Here, in barefaced terms, is the grant of monopoly in all railroad transportation, whether of commerce, passengers, mails, or troops, between _New York_, a city _outside_ of New Jersey, and _Philadelphia_, another city _outside_ of New Jersey. Or, looking at this grant of monopoly again, we find, that, _while leaving the local transportation of New Jersey untouched_, it undertakes to regulate and appropriate the transportation between two great cities outside of New Jersey, constituting, from geographical position, the gates through which the whole immense movement, north and south, must pass.

* * * * *

If this monopoly is offensive on its face, it becomes still more offensive, when we consider the motive in which it had its origin. By confession of its supporters, it was granted in order to raise a revenue for the State out of men and business not of the State. It was an ingenious device to tax commerce, passengers, mails, and troops in transit across New Jersey, from State to State. I quote a confession from the Legislative Journal of New Jersey, as long ago as 1841, in a document by the executive committee of the coalesced railroads, represented by the Camden and Amboy Company.