Part 24

This question is perhaps more important than it appears. On its face it is of form only, or rather of dress, proper for the learned in Carlyle’s “Sartor Resartus.” But I am not sure that it does not concern the character of the Republic. Shall our ministers abroad be required by any foreign government to assume a uniform unknown to our laws? Ministers of other countries appear at foreign courts in the dress they would wear before the sovereign at home. What is good enough for the sovereign at home is, I understand, good enough for other sovereigns. And surely the dress in which one of our ministers would appear before the President of the United States ought to be sufficient anywhere. Its simplicity is to my mind no argument against it.

It is sometimes said, gravely enough, that, if our ministers appear in the simple dress of a citizen, according to the requirement of Mr. Marcy’s famous circular, they may be mistaken for “upper servants.” If such be the case, they will have little of the stamp of fitness. I am not troubled on this head. Their simplicity would be a distinction, and it would be typical of the republican government they represent. Amidst the brilliant dresses and fantastic uniforms of European courts a simple dress would be most suggestive. A British minister appearing at the Congress of Vienna in simple black, with a single star on his breast, so contrasted with the bedizened crowd about him as to awaken the admiration of an illustrious prince, who exclaimed, “How distinguished!”

This is an old subject, which I trust may be disposed of at last. Mr. Marcy enjoined simplicity in the official dress of our foreign representatives, and dwelt with pride on the well-known example of Benjamin Franklin. But his instructions were not sufficiently explicit, and they were allowed to die out. Some appeared in simple black, and were not mistaken for “upper servants.” But gold lace at last carried the day, and our representatives now appear in a costume peculiar to European courts. A simple prohibition by Congress will put an end to this petty complication, and make it easy for them to follow abroad the simple ways to which they have been accustomed at home.

MR. SHERMAN. All I wish to know is, whether General Dix, or any other minister, could wear the uniform of our army, if he chose. The rule, if I understand it, in some foreign countries, is, that a person must appear at court in some kind of uniform. If none is provided by his government, or authorized by his government, then he adopts a certain uniform according to the custom of the country to which he is accredited. Perhaps, however, I am not correct.

MR. SUMNER. The object of the pending measure is to encounter that precise requirement of foreign governments, and to put our ministers on an equality with those of other countries. I have already said that ministers of other countries may appear at the courts to which they are addressed as they would appear before their own sovereign. I take it the Turkish ambassador is not obliged to assume in Paris or London any official costume peculiar to France or England; but he appears, as at a reception by his own sovereign, with the fez on his head. And so the Austrian ambassador appears in his fantastic Hungarian jacket. But I see no reason why there should be one rule for these ambassadors, and another for the representatives of the American Republic. Here, as elsewhere, there should be equality. The equality of nations is a first principle of International Law. But this is offended by any requirement of a foreign government which shall not leave our representative free to appear before the sovereign of the country to which he is accredited as he would before the Chief Magistrate of the American people,--in other words, in the simple dress of an American citizen. This is the whole case.

MR. SHERMAN. The Senator does not yet answer my question: Will this prevent an American minister abroad from wearing the uniform of an officer of the army of the United States, such as he would be entitled to wear under our laws, if here?

MR. SUMNER. If entitled under our laws, there could be no difficulty.

MR. SHERMAN. We have a law which authorizes a volunteer officer who has attained the rank of a brigadier-general, for instance, always on state occasions to wear that uniform.

MR. SUMNER. There can be no misunderstanding. The ministers are simply to follow Congress; and as Congress has not authorized any uniform or official costume, they can have none, unless they come within the exceptional case to which the Senator has alluded. Certain persons who have been in the military service are authorized, under an existing Act of Congress, to wear their military uniform on public occasions. This resolution cannot interfere in any way with that provision. It leaves the Act of Congress in full force, and is applicable only to those not embraced by that Act.

The joint resolution passed the Senate without a division. March 25th, it passed the House without a division, and was approved by the President, so that it became a law.[101] It was promptly communicated to our ministers abroad by a circular from the Department of State.

VIGILANCE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON RESOLUTIONS ADJOURNING CONGRESS, MARCH 23, 26, 28, AND 29, 1867.

March 23d, Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, offered a resolution adjourning the two Houses on Tuesday, March 26th, at twelve o’clock, noon, until the first Monday of December, at twelve o’clock, noon. Mr. Drake, of Missouri, moved to amend by striking out “the first Monday of December,” and inserting “Tuesday, the 15th day of October.” This amendment was rejected,--Yeas 19, Nays 28. Mr. Morrill, of Vermont, then moved to amend by inserting “first Monday of November,” and this amendment was rejected,--Yeas 18, Nays 27. Mr. Sumner then moved the adjournment of the two Houses on Thursday, the 28th day of March, at twelve o’clock, noon, until the first Monday of June, and that on that day, unless then otherwise ordered by the two Houses, until the first Monday of December. This was rejected,--Yeas 14, Nays 31. The question then recurred on the resolution of Mr. Trumbull. A debate ensued, in which Mr. Sumner said:--

I am against the resolution. In my opinion, Congress ought not to adjourn and go home without at least some provision for return to our post. As often as I think of this question, I am met by two controlling facts. I speak now of facts which stare us in the face.

You must not forget that the President is a bad man, the author of incalculable woe to his country, and especially to that part which, being most tried by war, most needed kindly care. Search history, and I am sure you will find no elected ruler who, during the same short time, has done so much mischief to his country. He stands alone in bad eminence. Nobody in ancient or modern times can be his parallel. Alone in the evil he has done, he is also alone in the maudlin and frantic manner he has adopted. Look at his acts, and read his speeches. This is enough.

Such is the fact. And now I ask, Can Congress quietly vote to go home and leave such a man without hindrance? These scenes are historic. His conduct is historic. Permit me to remind you that your course with regard to him will be historic. It can never be forgotten, if you keep your seats and meet the usurper face to face,--as it can never be forgotten, if, leaving your seats, you let him remain master to do as he pleases. Most of all, he covets your absence. Do not indulge him.

Then comes the other controlling fact. There is at this moment a numerous population, counted by millions,--call it, if you please, eight millions,--looking to Congress for protection. Of this large population, all the loyal people stretch out their hands to Congress. They ask you to stay. They know by instinct that so long as you remain in your seats they are not without protection. They have suffered through the President, who, when they needed bread, has given them a stone, and when they needed peace, has given them strife. They have seen him offer encouragement to Rebels, and even set the Rebellion on its legs. Their souls have been wrung as they beheld fellow-citizens brutally sacrificed, whose only crime was that they loved the Union. Sometimes the sacrifice was on a small scale, and sometimes by wholesale. Witness Memphis; witness New Orleans; ay, Sir, witness the whole broad country from the Potomac to the Rio Grande.

With a Presidential usurper menacing the Republic, and with a large population, counted by millions, looking to Congress for protection, I dare not vote to go home. It is my duty to stay here. I am sure that our presence here will be an encouragement and a comfort to loyal people throughout these troubled States. They will feel that they are not left alone with their deadly enemy. Home is always tempting. It is pleasant to escape from care. But duty is more than home or any escape from care. As often as I think of these temptations, I feel their insignificance by the side of solemn obligations. There is the President: he must be watched and opposed. There is an oppressed people: it must be protected. But this cannot be done without effort on the part of Congress. “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” Never was there more need for this vigilance than now.

An admirable and most suggestive engraving has been placed on our tables to-day, in “Harper’s Weekly,”[102] where President Johnson is represented as a Roman emperor presiding in the amphitheatre with imperatorial pomp, and surrounded by trusty counsellors, among whom it is easy to distinguish the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Navy, looking with complacency at the butchery below. The victims are black, and their sacrifice, as gladiators, makes a “Roman holiday.” Beneath the picture is written, “Amphitheatrum Johnsonianum--Massacre of the Innocents at New Orleans, July 30, 1866.” This inscription tells the terrible story. The bloody scene is before you. The massacre proceeds under patronage of the President. His Presidential nod is law. At his will blood spurts and men bite the dust. But this is only a single scene in one place. Wherever in the Rebel States there is a truly loyal citizen, loving the Union, there is a victim who may be called to suffer at any moment from the distempered spirit which now rules. I speak according to the evidence. This whole country is an “Amphitheatrum Johnsonianum,” where the victims are counted by the thousand. To my mind, there is no duty more urgent than to guard against this despot, and be ready to throw the shield of Congress over loyal citizens whom he delivers to sacrifice.

The resolution of Mr. Trumbull was agreed to,--Yeas 29, Nays 16.

March 25th, on motion of Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, the resolution was returned from the House of Representatives for reconsideration. Meanwhile the House adopted the following resolution, which was laid before the Senate:--

“That the Senate and House of Representatives do hereby each give consent to the other that each House of Congress shall adjourn the present session from the hour of twelve o’clock, meridian, on Thursday next, the 28th day of March instant, to assemble again on the first Wednesday of May, the first Wednesday of June, the first Wednesday of September, and the first Wednesday of November, of this year, unless the President of the Senate _pro tempore_ and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall by joint proclamation, to be issued by them ten days before either of the times herein fixed for assembling, declare that there is no occasion for the meeting of Congress at such time.”

On motion of Mr. Fessenden, this resolution was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

March 26th, the House resolution was reported by Mr. Trumbull, with a substitute adjourning the two Houses “on the 28th instant, at twelve o’clock, meridian.” Debate ensued, when Mr. Howe, of Wisconsin, moved an adjournment on the 29th of March until the first Monday of June, and on that day, unless then otherwise ordered by the two Houses, until the first Monday of December. After debate, this amendment was rejected,--Yeas 17, Nays 25. Mr. Morrill, of Vermont, moved to amend the substitute of the Committee by adding “to meet again on the first Monday of November next,” which was rejected,--Yeas 16, Nays 25. Mr. Sumner then moved to amend the substitute by adding:--

“_Provided_, That the President of the Senate _pro tempore_ and the Speaker of the House of Representatives may by joint proclamation, at any time before the first Monday of December, convene the two Houses of Congress for the transaction of business, if in their opinion the public interests require.”

Here he said:--

I am unwilling to doubt that Congress may authorize their officers to do that. I cannot doubt it. Assuming that we have the power, is not this an occasion to exercise it? I do not wish to be carried into the general debate. I had intended to say something about it; but it is late.… I will not, therefore, go into the general question, except to make one remark: I do think Congress ought to do something; we ought not to adjourn as on ordinary occasions,--for this is not an ordinary occasion, and there is the precise beginning of the difference between myself and the Senator from Maine, and also between myself and the Senator from Illinois.

The Senator from Illinois said, Why not, as on ordinary occasions, now go home? Ay, Sir, that is the very question. Is this an ordinary occasion? To my mind, it clearly is not. It is an extraordinary occasion, big with the fate of this Republic.

The amendment of Mr. Sumner was rejected,--Yeas 15, Nays 26. Mr. Howe then moved to insert “Friday, the 29th,” instead of “Thursday, the 28th,” which was rejected. Mr. Drake then moved an amendment, 28th March until 5th June, when, unless a quorum of both Houses were present, the presiding officers should adjourn until 4th September, when, unless a quorum of both Houses were present, they should adjourn until the first Monday of December. This also was rejected,--Yeas 14, Nays 27. The substitute reported by Mr. Trumbull was then agreed to,--Yeas 21, Nays 17. The other House then adopted a substitute, adjourning March 28th to the first Wednesday of June, and to the first Wednesday of September, unless the presiding officers, by joint proclamation ten days before either of these times, should declare that there was no occasion for the meeting of Congress at that time. In the Senate, March 28th, Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, moved a substitute, adjourning March 30th to the first Wednesday of July, and then, unless otherwise ordered by both Houses, on the next day adjourning without day.

Mr. Sumner said:--

The Senate seems to have arrived at a point where the difference is one of form rather than substance. We have been occupied almost an hour in discussing the phraseology of the resolution. We have reached the great point which was the subject of such earnest discussion two or three days ago, that Congress ought in some way or other to secure to itself the power of meeting during the long period between now and next December. I understand Senators are all agreed on that. I am glad of it. Only by time and discussion we have reached that harmony. The House has given us three opportunities. The old story is repeated. The Senate, so far as I can understand, is ready to adopt the proposition of the House,--substantially I mean, for this proposition, as I understand it, is simply to secure for Congress an opportunity of coming together during the summer and autumn. Now the practical question is, How shall this be best accomplished? I am ready to accept either of the forms. I am willing to accept the form last adopted by the House. I do not see that that is objectionable. I am ready, if I can get nothing better, to accept the form proposed by the Senator from Vermont; but I must confess that the form proposed by the Senator from Missouri seems briefer, clearer, better. If I could have my own way, I would set aside the proposition of the Senator from Vermont, and fall back upon that of the Senator from Missouri, as better expressing the conclusion which I am glad to see at last reached.

I believe it is settled that we shall not adjourn to-morrow. Am I right?

MR. EDMUNDS. Yes, Sir.

MR. SUMNER. I am glad of it. That is the gain of a day. We were to adjourn to-day at twelve o’clock, and then again to-morrow at twelve o’clock, and now it is put off until Saturday. I cannot doubt that the Senate would do much better, if it put off the adjournment until next week. There is important business on your table, which ought to be considered.

Mr. Sumner then called attention to measures deserving consideration, and continued:--

Here is another measure, which I once characterized as an effort to cut the Gordian knot of the suffrage question. It is a bill introduced by myself to carry out various constitutional provisions securing political rights in all our States, precisely as we have already secured civil rights. The importance of this bill cannot be exaggerated. There is not a Senator who does not know the anxious condition of things in the neighboring State of Maryland for want of such a bill. Let Congress interfere under the National Constitution, and exercise a power clearly belonging to it, settling this whole suffrage question, so that it shall no longer agitate the politics of the States, no longer be the occasion of dissension, possibly of bloodshed, in Maryland or in Delaware, or of difference in Ohio. Let us settle the question before we return home.

When I rose, I had no purpose of calling attention to these measures. My special object was to express satisfaction that the Senate at last is disposed to harmonize with the other House on the important question of securing to Congress the power of meeting during the summer and autumn. That is a great point gained for the peace and welfare of the country. Without it you will leave the country a prey to the President; you will leave our Union friends throughout the South a sacrifice to the same malignant usurper.

The substitute proposed by Mr. Edmunds was agreed to,--Yeas 25, Nays 14. The House non-concurring, it was referred to a committee of conference.

March 29th, another resolution having been meanwhile adopted by the House, providing for an adjournment to the first Wednesday of June, and then, if a quorum of both Houses were not present, to the first Wednesday of September, and then, in the absence of a quorum, to the first Monday of December, Mr. Edmunds moved the following substitute:--

“The President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives are hereby directed to adjourn their respective Houses on Saturday, March 30, 1867, at twelve o’clock, meridian, to the first Wednesday of July, 1867, at noon, when the roll of each House shall be immediately called, and immediately thereafter the presiding officer of each House shall cause the presiding officer of the other House to be informed whether or not a quorum of its body has appeared; and thereupon, if a quorum of the two Houses respectively shall not have appeared upon such call of the rolls, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall immediately adjourn their respective Houses without day.”

Mr. Sumner said:--

I am against the amendment on two grounds: first, that it proposes to adjourn too soon; and, secondly, that it superfluously and unnecessarily makes a new difference with the House of Representatives. In the first place, it proposes to adjourn too soon,--that is, to-morrow at twelve o’clock. The business of the country will suffer by adjournment at that time. We are now in currents of business that recall the last days of regular sessions, or the rapids that precede a cataract. Senators are straggling for the floor, and perhaps are not always amiable, if they do not obtain it. We ought to give time for all this important business, so that there be no such unseemly struggle.

The calendar of the Senate shows one hundred and fifteen bills now on your table from the Senate alone, of which only a small portion have been considered; and looking at the House calendar, I find one of their late bills numbered one hundred and two, showing that very large number, of which you have considered thus far only a very small proportion. I do not ask attention to these numerous bills, but unquestionably among them are many of great importance. There are two especially to which I have already referred, and to which I mean to call your attention, so long as you sit as a Congress, and down to the last moment, unless they shall be acted on. I mean, in the first place, the bill providing for a change in the time of electing a mayor and other officers in the city of Washington. Congress ought not to go home leaving this question unsettled.

You have bestowed the suffrage upon the colored people here, and they are about to exercise it in choosing aldermen and a common council; but those aldermen and common councilmen will find themselves presided over by a mayor chosen by a different constituency, and hostile to them in sentiment, one possessing sometimes the veto power, and always a very considerable influence, which he will naturally exercise against this new government. Will you leave Washington subject to such discord? Will you consent that the votes of the colored people shall be thus neutralized the first time they are called into exercise? I trust Congress will not adjourn until this important bill is acted upon. It is very simple; it need not excite discussion; it is practical. Let it be read at the table, and every Senator will understand it, and will be ready to vote upon it without argument. Thus far I have not been able to bring it before the Senate, though I have tried day by day. I have not yet been able to have it read.

Mr. Sumner then referred again to the bill securing the elective franchise throughout the country, vindicating its constitutionality and necessity.

Mr. Wilson then moved to amend by making the day of adjournment the 10th of April; but this was rejected,--Yeas 13, Nays 28. Mr. Sumner then moved to amend by inserting “five o’clock, Saturday afternoon,” instead of “twelve o’clock, noon,” saying, “so that we shall have five hours more for work”; but this, modified by the substitution of four o’clock, was likewise rejected.

The substitute of Mr. Edmunds was then adopted,--Yeas 28, Nays 12,--Mr. Sumner voting in the negative. The House concurred, and the adjournment took place accordingly.

* * * * *

In this episode began the differences with regard to President Johnson. To protect good people against him was the object of the earnest effort to prolong the session and to provide for an intermediate session before the regular meeting of Congress. Among those who voted for the adjournment were distinguished Senators who afterwards voted for his acquittal, when impeached at the bar of the Senate.

LOYALTY AND REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT CONDITIONS OF ASSISTANCE TO THE REBEL STATES.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON A JOINT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SURVEYS FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE LEVEES OF THE MISSISSIPPI, MARCH 29, 1867.