Part 6

In making this change, we shall simply enlarge and expand the existing powers of the Secretary of the Treasury. He is now the head of the custom-house; he regulates the passenger system. Go further, and give him these additional powers, that shall enable him, so far as he can, to prevent the introduction of disease into the country. All that we do will be in harmony with the practice of the Government, and I believe above question. The Government, in the exercise of admitted powers, will be, I trust, more than a match for the cholera.

May 15th, Mr. Reverdy Johnson replied, when Mr. Sumner rejoined:--

The Senator from Maryland has referred us to the decisions of the Supreme Court which in his opinion bear directly on this point; but, Sir, with the ingenuity of a practised lawyer, he has omitted to remind us of that decision which, perhaps, of all others, is the most applicable. With the permission of the Senate, I will make up for the deficiency of the learned Senator, or at least endeavor to do so. I refer to the case of _The United States_ v. _Coombs_, in the twelfth volume of Peters’s Reports. There you will find one of the able and well-considered judgments of the late Mr. Justice Story, particularly treating this question. By “this question” I mean the power of Congress under the National Constitution to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States. I will read a passage from his judgment, page 78:--

“The power to regulate commerce includes the power to regulate navigation, as connected with the commerce with foreign nations and among the States. It was so held and decided by this court, after the most deliberate consideration, in the case of _Gibbons_ v. _Ogden_, 9 Wheaton, 189 to 198.”

All that the Senator will of course recognize; for, indeed, he has admitted as much in what he has said and cited. The learned judge then proceeds:--

“It does not stop at the mere boundary-line of a State; nor is it confined to acts done on the water, or in the necessary course of the navigation thereof. It extends to such acts, done on land, which interfere with, obstruct, or prevent the due exercise of the power to regulate commerce and navigation with foreign nations and among the States. Any offence which thus interferes with, obstructs, or prevents such commerce and navigation, though done on land, may be punished by Congress, under its general authority to make all laws necessary and proper to execute their delegated constitutional powers.”

Those are the pointed words of Mr. Justice Story.

MR. MORRILL. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a question?

MR. SUMNER. Certainly.

MR. MORRILL. That is, to regulate commerce.

MR. SUMNER. To regulate commerce.

MR. MORRILL. Does the Senator mean to be understood that a regulation in regard to cholera, a disease, is a regulation of commerce?

MR. SUMNER. I do, certainly.

MR. MORRILL. Then the cholera is commerce?

MR. SUMNER. No; cholera is not commerce, but cholera comes from passengers.

MR. MORRILL. Then is the regulation of it commerce, or is it the treatment of a disease? Is it a regulation of health, or a regulation of commerce?

MR. SUMNER. It is connected with commerce, and must be treated in its appropriate connection.

…

Nor do I understand that this is an exercise of power for the first time. It is nothing more than a new application of an old power, or an expansion of an old power to a new condition of circumstances, and perhaps I may say enlarging the old power, because the circumstances require the enlargement. I do not understand that any new fountain is opened. No new source is drawn upon; no new principle is invoked. We go back to the original text so often applied in kindred cases, and insist upon its application now.

If I understand the argument of the Senator, it is that all quarantine regulations belong to the States exclusively. Am I right in that?

MR. MORRILL. Most of them.

MR. SUMNER. The Senator, I understand, says they belong exclusively to the States.

MR. MORRILL. Yes.

MR. SUMNER. If I carry the idea of the Senator still further, it would be to say that the Government of the United States might make all possible regulations with reference to passengers water-borne, but could not touch them with any sanitary regulation the moment they entered our harbors. Such is the inevitable conclusion; and permit me to say, it is an absurdity. I will not consent thus to despoil the National Government of a power which to my mind seems so essential to the national health.

After quoting the statute of February 25, 1799, entitled “An Act respecting Quarantines and Health Laws,” by which United States officers are directed to assist State officers in enforcing the quarantine, Mr. Sumner proceeded:--

Now I submit that this statute of 1799 relating to quarantine contains a jumble or confusion not unlike that in the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793,--that is, a recognition of a concurrent jurisdiction in the State and National Governments over this question. The measure now before the Senate would follow out the general principle or reasoning of later years, and assure the jurisdiction to the Federal, or, as I always like to call it, the National power. It would secure it to the National power; and to my mind it properly belongs to the National power, and no ingenuity of the Senator from Maine can satisfy me that it should not be intrusted to the National power. It is essentially a National object, and can be performed effectively and thoroughly only through the National arm. If you intrust it to the different local authorities, you will have as many systems as you have States or communities, and you cannot bring your policy to bear with that unity which it ought to have in dealing with so deadly a foe. You should be able to carry into this business something of the combination and directness of war. At the same time I beg to say, as I have heretofore said, that I do not recognize this in any respect as a military remedy. I treat it absolutely as commercial; I derive it from a commercial power; and by the amendment which I have introduced I would place it under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury.

The amendment of Mr. Sumner was agreed to without a division. The substitute of the Committee, thus amended, was lost,--Yeas 17, Nays 19. The original House resolution was then amended in conformity with Mr. Sumner’s amendment, by inserting “Secretary of the Treasury” instead of “President,” and passed,--Yeas 27, Nays 12,--and afterwards approved by the President.[29]

RANK OF DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVES ABROAD.

SPEECHES IN THE SENATE, ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSULAR AND DIPLOMATIC BILL, AUTHORIZING ENVOYS EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTERS PLENIPOTENTIARY INSTEAD OF MINISTERS RESIDENT, MAY 16 AND 17, 1866.

May 16th, the Senate having under consideration the bill making appropriations for the consular and diplomatic expenses for the ensuing year, Mr. Sumner moved the following amendment:--

“_Provided_, That an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary appointed at any place where the United States are now represented by a minister resident shall receive the compensation fixed by law and appropriated for a minister resident, and no more.”

Mr. Sumner then said:--

I should like to make a brief explanation of this amendment. It will be perceived that it comes after the appropriation for salaries of envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary and ministers resident. Its object, in one word, is to authorize the Government, in its discretion, to employ persons with the title of envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary where it now employs ministers resident, but without any increase of salary. This subject has occupied the attention of the Committee on Foreign Relations for several years; it has been more than once before the Senate. The Committee were unanimous that the good of the service, especially in Europe, required this change. From authentic information it appears that our ministers at courts where they have only the title of ministers resident play a second part to gentlemen with the higher title, though representing governments which we should not consider in worldly rank on an equality with ours. They are second to them; in short, to use a familiar illustration, and simply to bring the difference home, when they call upon business or appear anywhere, they bear the same relation to the envoys extraordinary of those smaller governments that a member of the other House, calling upon the President, bears to Senators. The Senator is admitted, when the member of the other House, as we know, waits.

I hold in my hand the last Almanac of Gotha, for 1866, which is the diplomatic authority for the world, and has been for a century; and, by way of example, I turn to the diplomatic list for the Netherlands, where, it will be remembered, we are represented by a patriotic citizen, well known to most of us, who was once connected with the press,--Mr. Pike,--with the title of minister resident. According to the list, I find at this same court the Grand Duchy of Baden represented by an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary; Belgium, the adjoining country, and with a population much inferior to our own, represented by an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary; Denmark, a nation which, shorn of the two provinces of Schleswig and Holstein, has little more than a million and a half of population, represented by an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary. Spain, of course, is represented by an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary. Even the Grand Duchy of Hesse is so represented; so is the kingdom of Italy; so is the Duchy of Nassau; so is Portugal; so is Prussia; and so others. In transacting business, the American minister resident at this court is always treated as second to these representatives. I have alluded to the relations we bear to the head of the Executive Department here, as compared with members of the other House. I doubt not that Senators know there is a positive business advantage in having access promptly, and perhaps with a certain consideration which does not always attach to those of inferior rank.

…

It will be observed that the proposition does not undertake to empower the President, or to direct him, to make this change; but it assumes, according to a certain theory of the Constitution, that under the Constitution it is in the discretion of the President to send ambassadors, envoys extraordinary, or ministers resident, or any other diplomatic functionary, in his discretion, Congress having only the function of supplying the means.

…

Now the proposition which I have moved proceeds, in harmony with this, simply to declare, that, if the President shall undertake to appoint an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to any court where we are now represented by a minister resident, the salary shall be only that of a minister resident. Proceeding with the theory of this Act and a certain theory of the Constitution, the President has the power already to appoint an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to any of these courts, if in his discretion he shall see fit; but there is no salary appropriated by law. If the amendment now offered should be adopted, it would be in his discretion to change our representative from a minister resident to an envoy extraordinary, but without increase of salary; and the simple question remains, whether this enabling discretion is not proper. The President is not called upon to exercise it. There are places where he may think it better to continue the minister resident.

MR. FESSENDEN. He can do it now.

MR. SUMNER. But there is no salary; the salary would not apply. The amendment is to supply the salary in such cases; that is all. I have heard it observed, that, though the President may now, under the Constitution, appoint to any place an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, he is restrained in the exercise of that power by the want of an appropriation to support the appointment. The present proposition meets that difficulty precisely.

The amendment was opposed by Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, and Mr. Grimes, of Iowa. Mr. Sumner replied:--

I have no feeling on this question at all,--not the least; nor do I approach it as a political question. I see no individual in it. I do not see Mr. Harvey or Mr. Sanford. I see nobody here to oppose, and nobody to favor. I know nothing in it but my country and its service abroad. Sir, I think I am as sensitive as any other Senator with regard to the just influence belonging to my country as a republic great and glorious in the history of mankind. I believe that I am duly proud of it, and conscious of the weight it ought to carry wherever it appears. I know its name stands for something in the world, and that whoever represents this country on the ocean or in the diplomatic service has, alone, a great and powerful recommendation. But I also know too much of human history and too much of human nature, not to know that men everywhere are influenced more or less by the title of those who approach them.

MR. FESSENDEN. Governments are not; men may be.

MR. SUMNER. But let me remind my friend that governments are composed of men. He knows well that the presence of a general on a particular service produces more certain effect and prompter result than the presence of a colonel or a major, at least under ordinary circumstances. My other friend, who represents the Naval Committee on this floor [Mr. GRIMES], knows very well, that, if he sends an admiral on any service, it may be only of compliment, he produces at once a greater effect than if he sends a lieutenant.

The Senator has just induced us to send the Assistant Secretary of the Navy to Europe, because in that way he might give more _éclat_ to a certain service. I united with him in the effort. But why not allow a clerk of the Department to carry our resolution? The Senator knew full well, if he sent the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, he should do more than if he sent a simple clerk of the Department. And therefore I am brought to the precise point, that, whatever the rank of our country in the world, and how much soever we may be entitled, at all courts where our representatives are, to the highest precedence, yet, such is human nature, our position is impaired by the title of the agent we send. I would give our agent the artificial accessories and incidents which the Law of Nations allows. I follow the Law of Nations. Why does this law authorize or sanction, and why do our Constitution and statutes, following the Law of Nations, authorize and sanction, a difference of rank, except to obtain corresponding degrees of influence? That is the theory which underlies the gradation of rank. It runs into the army; it runs into the navy; it runs into Congress; it runs into all the business of life; and the simple question is, whether now, in the diplomatic service of the country, in dealing with our foreign agents, we shall discard a principle of action followed in everything else.

The amendment was rejected,--Yeas 15, Nays 17.

* * * * *

May 17th, Mr. Sumner renewed his effort, by moving the amendment in the following form:--

“_And be it further enacted_, That the salary of any envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary hereafter appointed shall be the salary of a minister resident, and nothing more, except when he is appointed to one of the countries where the United States are now represented by an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary.”

After explaining it, Mr. Sumner said, especially in reply to Mr. Grimes:--

I do not like to discuss things forever that have been discussed so often. I have said so much on this matter that I feel ashamed to add another word; and yet, as the Senator from Iowa returns to the assault, perhaps I should return to the defence.

I tried to show, last evening, that, in introducing this proposition, I was simply acting on the practice of the Government in other respects, and upon the practice of mankind generally, everywhere; and my friend from Ohio [Mr. WADE] reminds me that the argument of the Senator from Iowa, a few days ago, was one of the strongest illustrations of what I said. He induced the Senate to agree to appoint a new Assistant Secretary of the Navy, merely to allow the actual Assistant Secretary to go abroad, because his presence would enhance the service. Under his argument, yielding to its pressure, we appointed a new functionary in the Department of the Navy.

Now, if I can have the attention of the Senator from Iowa for one moment, I would put him a practical question. If he had important business, say with the mayor of New York, which he wished to present in the best way possible, I have no doubt my friend would count naturally upon his own character, and justly; he would believe that any agent sent by him to the mayor of New York would be well received. Doubtless he would be well received; yet, if there were two persons whose services he might employ, one with the rank of general and the other with the rank of colonel, but equal in abilities and in fitness, I have no doubt my friend would select the general rather than the colonel. From familiarity with human nature, he knows that the general, on arrival, would have a prompter reception than the colonel. It is useless to say, in reply, that behind the agent is the same personage. I assume all that; but I would secure for that same personage the best reception possible, and the highest facilities for his representative. I would now secure the same thing for my country, and I believe--pardon me, if I introduce my own personal testimony--but I believe, according to such opportunities of observation as I have had, now running over a considerable period of life, that the interests of the country would be promoted by this change. I believe that business would be facilitated, and opportunities of influence enhanced.

I make no allusion to topics playfully introduced into this discussion. It is a matter of comparative indifference what place a man may have at a dinner-table; but I do wish to secure facilities in business and respect for the representatives of my country to the largest degree possible.

The amendment was adopted,--Yeas 18, Nays 16.

OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE, AND MR. HUNTER.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSULAR AND DIPLOMATIC BILL, CREATING THE OFFICE OF SECOND ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE, MAY 16 AND 17, 1866.

May 16th, the Senate having under consideration the bill making appropriations for the consular and diplomatic expenses, Mr. Sumner moved an addition of twenty per cent. to the compensation allowed to the clerks of the State Department. A petition from the clerks was read. Mr. Sumner then said:--

I do not know that there is any necessity for me to add anything. The petition speaks for itself. It states the whole case. But a word will not be out of place with regard to the gentleman who heads the petition,--Mr. Hunter. He is one of the oldest public servants now connected with the Government. He has been in the Department of State for more than thirty years. He may be called the living index to that Department; and I believe I do not err in saying that in our Blue Book of office there is no person whose integrity is more generally recognized. Placed in a position of especial trust, where all the foreign correspondence of the Government passes under his eye, that which comes and that which goes, I believe he has passed a life without blame. He has been in a position where, had his integrity been open to seduction, he might have been tempted. No human being imagines that he has ever yielded. He has discharged his very important trusts on a very humble salary. I think the Senator from Maine [Mr. FESSENDEN] knows him well enough to know that he has brought to those functions ability of a peculiar character. And now, in the decline of life, he finds himself with the small salary of a clerk, on which he can with difficulty subsist,--and yet all the time rendering these important services and discharging these considerable trusts, absorbed in the business of the office so that he takes it home with him nightly. It leaves with him in the evening and returns with him in the morning, and then it fills the long day. I think that such a public servant deserves recognition. I have for some time felt that his compensation was inadequate. I have thought that his salary ought to be raised; but, after consideration of the question in committee, and consultation with others, it was thought best to present the case in a general proposition such as I have now moved, being for the addition of twenty per cent. to the compensation of all the clerks in the Department. The argument for this is enforced in the petition from these gentlemen which has been read at the desk. I can see no objection to it, especially after what we have done for the clerks of the Treasury. Are not public servants at the State Department as worthy as public servants at the Treasury?

The debate showed the indisposition of Senators to any general addition to the compensation of the clerks of the State Department, but with recognition of the merits of Mr. Hunter.

* * * * *

May 17th, after conversation and discussion, Mr. Sumner changed his motion, so as to read:--

“_And be it further enacted_, That the President be, and he is hereby, authorized to appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a second Assistant Secretary of State in the Department of State, at an annual salary of $3,500, to commence on the first day of July, 1866; and the amount necessary to pay the same is hereby appropriated.”

Mr. Sumner then said:--

A Senator near me says he will not vote for this amendment, unless I put in the name. It is perfectly well known that it is intended as an opportunity to appoint Mr. Hunter, and the authorities, I presume, will take notice. There is no need of inserting his name; and the remark of the Senator is simply a criticism for an excuse. I hope the Senate will adopt the amendment without a division.

There was a division, and the amendment was adopted,--Yeas 18, Nays 17.

DELAY IN THE REMOVAL OF DISABILITIES.

LETTER TO AN APPLICANT, MAY, 1866.

This letter was originally published in a Southern paper, but without the date.

SENATE CHAMBER [May, 1866].

DEAR SIR,--I have your letter of the 19th in reference to the removal of your political disabilities.

I am not sure that the time has yet come to make exceptions to our general policy in individual cases. To do so would open the door to innumerable applications; and once open, it would be difficult to shut it.

I hope to meet such cases as yours by some general enactment; and as soon as the condition of the country will permit, I shall be the first to advocate the removal of all disabilities under which you labor at present.

Yours truly,

CHARLES SUMNER.

INTERRUPTION OF RIGHT OF PETITION.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON THE WITHDRAWAL OF A PETITION FROM CITIZENS OF VIRGINIA, MAY 24, 1866.