Part 7

Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, recently presented a petition from citizens of Augusta County, Virginia, which was duly referred, stating that the Union men in that locality were without protection from the local authorities, and asking that the military power be not withdrawn. The petition caused excitement in the neighborhood, accompanied by threats. Mr. Trumbull had asked to withdraw the petition and return it to the petitioners, “that they may protect themselves, as far as this will enable them to do so, against the accusations which have been brought upon them,” and expressed his regret that he could not propose some measure for their protection.

Mr. Sumner said:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--I hope the Senate will not take this step without considering its importance. I do not mean to oppose it, but I would ask attention to what I may call its gravity. I am not aware that a petition has ever before been withdrawn on a motion like that now made. A petition once presented comes into the possession of the Senate; it passes into its files, and into the archives of the Capitol. We are about to make a precedent for the first time. I do not say that the occasion does not justify the precedent. I incline to agree with my friend from Illinois. We owe protection, so far as we can afford it, to these petitioners; and since the Senator from Illinois regards this as the best way, I am disposed to follow him; but in doing it, I wish the Senate to take notice of the character of the step, and of the precedent they make.

But this is not all, Sir. I wish the Senate to take notice that they are called to adopt this exceptional precedent by the lawless and brutal condition of the social system about these petitioners. The very fact which the Senator brings to the attention of the Senate, and on account of which he invokes an unprecedented exercise of power, is important evidence on the condition of things in one of these Rebel States. It goes to show that they are not yet in any just sense reconstructed, or prepared for reconstruction. Such an abnormal fact could not occur in any other part of our broad country. That it occurs here must be referred to remains of Rebellion not yet subdued, but which you are now called upon, in the exercise of powers under the National Constitution, to overcome and obliterate.

Therefore, Sir, I regard this transaction in a double light: first, as an important precedent in the business of the Senate; secondly, as illustrating a condition of things to justify every exercise of care and diligence on our part, that it may not bring forth similar fruits hereafter. The right of petition, a great popular right, cannot be interrupted without a blow at the Constitution.

OFFICIAL HISTORY OF THE REBELLION.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON A JOINT RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE FOR THE PUBLICATION OF THE OFFICIAL HISTORY OF THE REBELLION, MAY 24, 1866.

May 24th, on motion of Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, the Senate considered a joint resolution to provide for the publication of an official history of the Rebellion. In the debate that ensued, Mr. Sumner said:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--We have already in our history some experience by which we may be taught on this question. Senators have seen in their libraries, certainly in the Congressional Library, the large volumes known as “American Archives,” of which there are portions of two series. When that collection was commenced, it was intended that it should embody all the papers, military and diplomatic, and also leading articles in newspapers, relating to the origin of our Revolution and the War of Independence. The collection proceeded to the year 1776, under the editorship of Peter Force, of this city, a gentleman as competent, I suppose, as any person who could have been selected in the whole country; but it was subject to the revising judgment of the Secretary of State. Finally, when Mr. Force had prepared a volume for 1777, and his papers were collected and laid before the Secretary of State, at that time Mr. Marcy, the latter functionary refused his assent to any further publication, and the collection, originally ordered by Act of Congress,[30] was arrested at the year 1776, and primarily because the Secretary of State declined to give his final assent, as required under a subsequent Act.[31] Such is our experience with regard to one important portion of our history, the War of Independence. The documents are not yet published in one connected series; I do not know that they ever will be. And now, Sir, it is proposed to commence another series, promising more expense even than that of the War of Independence.

I would simply suggest that we may well consider whether it might not be advisable to complete the original series, and to illustrate the War of Independence, before we enter upon the work of illustrating this recent more terrible conflict. But, Sir, suppose we undertake the latter work; then I think all that has been said, particularly by the Senator from Maine [Mr. FESSENDEN], suggesting caution, care, and editorship, of infinite importance. I agree with that Senator absolutely, when he says the whole collection will be of very little value, it will be trivial, if not well edited, well arranged, and then well indexed.

MR. FESSENDEN. And the larger it is, the worse it will be.

MR. SUMNER. Of course. Then Senators say that we must find a competent man. Who is the competent man? I do not know him now. I dare say he might come to light, perhaps, if we went about with a lantern after him; but the competent man to gather together all this mass of documents, to put them in order, and then to make a proper analytical index, would be a very rare character. He must be a man without the turbulent ambition that belongs to politicians,--disposed to quiet, willing to live at home with his books and papers, and give himself day and night to serious toil. That is the character of man you would require. I do not know where he could be found.

MR. JOHNSON [of Maryland]. You might find him in Boston.

MR. SUMNER. In Boston, if anywhere, perhaps. [_Laughter._] But I do not know him there, I am free to say.

MR. FESSENDEN. Resign, and take charge of it yourself. [_Laughter._]

MR. SUMNER. I do not know but that is the best thing I could do [_laughter_]; but then I should despair of getting through the work.

MR. FESSENDEN. I would agree to serve as your clerk.

MR. SUMNER. Then the work would surely be done. [_Laughter._]

All this brings us to the conclusion that what we do should be well considered and laid out in advance. I think, therefore, it is important that the resolution should be recommitted, that we should have the benefit of all the information we can obtain from the Department, and, if possible, provide in advance the method, the arrangement, and the way in which the collection should be indexed. As much should be done in advance as possible. Sir, we may derive instruction on this subject from what is doing in other nations. At this moment the French Emperor is publishing the writings of his uncle, the Emperor Napoleon. The collection has already proceeded to nineteen or twenty quarto volumes, elaborately edited, the purpose being to bring together every scrap, military, diplomatic, or personal, which can be found proceeding from the First Napoleon. All is under special editorship. Some of the first men of France are a committee superintending it. If we undertake our work, I think we ought to do as well by it as the Emperor of France does by the writings of his uncle.

The joint resolution was recommitted to the Committee on Military Affairs and reported back with an amendment. It finally passed both Houses, and was approved by the President.[32]

EQUAL RIGHTS A CONDITION OF RECONSTRUCTION.

AMENDMENT IN THE SENATE TO A RECONSTRUCTION BILL, MAY 29, 1866.

April 30th, Mr. Fessenden, from the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, reported a bill “to provide for restoring to the States lately in insurrection their full political rights.” There was no requirement of Equal Rights as a condition of Reconstruction.

* * * * *

May 29th, Mr. Sumner introduced the following amendment as a substitute for the first section of the bill:--

That, when any State lately in rebellion shall have ratified the foregoing Amendment, and shall have modified its constitution and laws in conformity therewith, and shall have further provided that there shall be no denial of the elective franchise to citizens of the United States because of race or color, and that all persons shall be equal before the law, the Senators and Representatives from such State, if found duly elected and qualified, may, after having taken the required oaths of office, be admitted into Congress as such: _Provided_, that nothing in this section shall be so construed as to require the disfranchisement of any loyal person who is now allowed to vote.

The bill was never called up after the printing of this amendment.

INTER-STATE INTERCOURSE BY RAILWAY.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON THE BILL TO FACILITATE COMMERCIAL, POSTAL, AND MILITARY COMMUNICATION IN THE SEVERAL STATES, MAY 29, 1866.

A measure relating to inter-State intercourse, especially by railway, which had been considered by a former Congress, reappeared in the present Congress. The bill of Mr. Sumner, “to facilitate commercial, postal, and military communication among the several States,”[33] was introduced into the House of Representatives and adopted, with a proviso touching stipulations between the United States and any railway company. In the Senate it was considered from time to time.

* * * * *

May 29th, the following additional proviso, moved by Mr. Clark, of New Hampshire, was adopted,--Yeas 24, Nays 15:--

“Nor shall it be construed to authorize any railroad company to build any new road or connection with any other road, without authority from the State in which said railroad or connection may be proposed.”

On the third reading of the bill, Mr. Sumner said:--

I agree with the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. COWAN], that the measure before us is important: whether so transcendently important as he depicts I do not venture to say. But, Sir, I believe it a beneficent measure, and important from its very beneficence.

The bill as originally presented was complete and simple. I think it met the idea so ably set forth by the Senator from Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN]. Were the bill adopted in that form, it would be truly beneficent. It would prevent any State from becoming a turnpike-gate to the internal commerce of the country.

No State, I insist, has a right to take toll on the internal commerce of this great republic, and it belongs to the United States, under the National Constitution, to regulate that internal commerce. It was in the exercise of that power, under the National Constitution, and also of other powers, as the power to regulate the post-office, and also the military power, that this bill was conceived. I say, Sir, in every respect it is beneficent. It has been to-day ably and conclusively vindicated by the Senator from Ohio. On other occasions I have considered it. I feel now that there is little occasion for any further elaborate discussion. I regret, Sir, with the Senator from Ohio, that the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire has been fastened upon it. I wish it were in our power now to give the bill its original force and virtue. But, even with that amendment, it is better than nothing. It does something. It goes forth and does battle with a monopoly in at least one State of the Union which was in view when the bill was first presented. It is also a precedent for the future action of Congress, and it will open the way to what the Senator from Ohio so earnestly desires.

I shall be glad hereafter to act with him in carrying out the original purposes of this bill, so that no State shall be able to set itself in the way of the internal commerce of the country. But, considering that the amendment is already attached to the bill, that we have now passed the stage when it would be advisable to open the discussion again, I hope the Senate will proceed to its final passage. Though shorn of some of its virtue, it is better than nothing; it will do much good. Even in its present form it is essentially beneficent. Therefore I hope it will be adopted.

The bill passed the Senate,--Yeas 22, Nays 19,--and was approved by the President.[34]

ATTITUDE OF JUSTICE TOWARDS ENGLAND.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON THE BILL FOR THE RELIEF OF THE OWNERS OF THE BRITISH VESSEL MAGICIENNE, JUNE 26, 1866.

June 26th, on motion of Mr. Sumner, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill for the relief of the owners of the British vessel Magicienne. The bill directed the payment of $8,645 to these owners for damages from the wrongful seizure and detention of that vessel by the United States ship Onward, in January, 1863.

Mr. Sumner said:--

Before the vote is taken, I desire that the Senate should understand the character of the bill. The Senate may have forgotten that a message of the President, bearing date April 4, 1866, communicated to the two Houses of Congress the correspondence between the Government of the United States and the Government of Great Britain relating to this vessel. By that correspondence it appears that the United States, through Mr. Seward, and the Government of Great Britain, through Lord Lyons, came to an agreement, in 1863, to refer the question of damages in this matter to Mr. Evarts, the eminent counsel at New York, and Mr. Archibald, the British consul at New York. Those two referees have proceeded with the business and made a report, which forms the basis of this bill. I call particular attention to the dates, as they had an influence on the judgment of the Committee. I need not remind the Senate, that, at a later day, Lord Russell, in a formal manner, declined all arbitration of our claims on Great Britain. That was by a communication to Mr. Adams, our minister at Great Britain, bearing date August 30, 1865. All will remember the terms of that note, which have been substantially set forth in the annual message of the President. Had the case of this vessel arisen subsequently to the note, it would have been a grave question whether the Committee could have counselled any present recognition of the claim; but it was otherwise. The case occurred and the referees were selected before the note. Under the circumstances, there was no alternative. We had selected our court, and the damages were determined by the judgment of that court. It only remains for us to abide by the judgment of the tribunal we have assisted in establishing.

Mr. Conness, of California, said:--

“I have great confidence in the Committee on Foreign Relations. I know the sense of justice of that Committee, and of the Chairman of that Committee, and have great respect for it; but I cannot vote to pay any British claim in the face of the insulting response made by the British Government to the proposition even to consider American claims.”

Mr. Sumner replied:--

I make no question with the Senator from California with regard to the reply of Lord Russell.… I see that to pay the bill goes against the grain of the Senator; but I believe he, too, is not insensible to the claims of equity. While I have no doubt how the conduct of Great Britain with regard to our losses should be characterized, I am anxious that my own country should be kept firm and constant in the attitude of justice.

The bill passed both Houses without a division, and was approved by the President.[35]

POWER OF CONGRESS TO MAKE A SHIP-CANAL AT NIAGARA.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON A BILL TO INCORPORATE THE NIAGARA SHIP-CANAL, JUNE 28, 1866.

June 28th, the Senate took up a bill from the House to incorporate the Niagara Ship-Canal, and the first question was on the following amendment, reported by the Senate Committee on Commerce:--

“SECTION 28. _And be it further enacted_, That this Act shall not take effect, unless the Legislature of the State of New York shall within one year of the date hereof give its assent thereto.”

In the debate that ensued, Mr. Sumner said:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. GUTHRIE] gives his judgment in favor of the proposed ship-canal, but he gives his argument against it. He is in favor of delay, and the reason he assigns is, that the country is already encumbered by a large national debt, which we should not increase by any additional expenditure; and he asks, with a triumphant air, whether it has ever before been proposed to reduce a national debt by increasing it. But his question does not meet the case. It is proposed, so far as I understand, to provide additional resources. To that end additional expenditure will be incurred. Out of the additional resources there will be increased means for the payment of the national debt. This is the answer to the Senator; and as I understand him to make no other special objection to proceeding with the matter now, I feel that he is completely answered.

I confess, however, Sir, that what fell from the Senator from Iowa [Mr. GRIMES] produced more impression on my mind. His objection to the execution of this work by a corporation, and to allowing that corporation to establish tolls which the people of his State and of other States at the West should be obliged to pay, certainly deserves attention.

MR. SHERMAN. And there is the water power.

MR. SUMNER. Which is to be given to this corporation. I say it deserves attention. But I think the Senator is mistaken, when on that account he interposes the dilatory motion asking the bill recommitted. I do not know that at a subsequent stage of the debate it may not be important to recommit it; but I believe that at this moment we had better proceed with the bill, and have a vote of the Senate on the amendment reported by the Committee. For one, I wish an opportunity, and the sooner the better, to vote against that amendment. Senators about me say, so do they. Let us, then, proceed with the bill; and I hope the Senate will vote down the amendment which is to invite the consent and coöperation of the State of New York. On that question the Senate should establish a precedent.

The time has come for us to assert the powers of the National Government, independent of the States, in certain cases. The argument in this debate has gone very much on the military power of the Government, little allusion being made to that other source of power which seems to me so ample,--the power to regulate commerce among the States. I prefer to found this power upon that text of the National Constitution. I ask Congress to interpose its power to regulate commerce among the States,--to interpose it on a great occasion, under circumstances, I admit, of special responsibility, when I consider the time and the occasion, but under circumstances which amply justify the exercise of the power. Who, Sir, can doubt, that, under these special words of the National Constitution, we have full power over this whole question? Who can doubt, that, without asking consent of New York, we may establish a canal about the Falls of Niagara? I am at a loss to understand how any Senator can hesitate as to the power of Congress.

Assuming, then, that Congress has the power, the only remaining question is as to the expediency of exercising it at this time; and that again brings me to the argument of the Senator from Kentucky, that at this time, when we are involved in a large national debt, we should not undertake to increase it. But to this I have already replied.

I hope, Sir, there will be no delay,--that the Senate will proceed with the bill at once. The question is great; it is important; it is almost historical; it is nothing less than to determine whether the northern shores of Ohio and Illinois shall be brought forward to the ocean itself, so that the large towns there shall become ports of the sea. By this ship-canal Chicago and Cleveland may be made harbors on the Atlantic coast. Sir, that is an object well worthy of an honest ambition, and I ask the Senate without delay to do what it can for the great result.

After debate, the bill was postponed to the second Tuesday of December. Though considered at the next session, there was no final action upon it.

HONOR TO A CONSTANT UNION-MAN OF SOUTH CAROLINA.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON A JOINT RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE FOR CONGRESS OF THE LAW LIBRARY OF THE LATE JAMES L. PETTIGRU, OF SOUTH CAROLINA, JULY 3, 1866.

July 3d, the Senate having under consideration a joint resolution, reported by the Library Committee, appropriating five thousand dollars for the purchase of the law library of the late James L. Pettigru, of South Carolina, Mr. Sumner said:--

I see no objection to this proposition on grounds of constitutional power. I cannot doubt the power. Had I been called to vote, when under consideration some weeks ago, I should have voted in the negative. I was disposed at that time to look at the purchase simply as a question of economy. Since then I have been led to regard it in that other aspect presented by the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. HOWE], and I hesitate to vote against it.

I have gone over the catalogue of the library. It is a respectable library for a practising lawyer. Some of the books are valuable, others may be useful as duplicates.

But in voting this sum I do not expect an equivalent in the books. I would make the purchase an occasion of expressing sympathy with courage and fidelity under peculiar difficulties in the cause of our country. Mr. Pettigru was like the angel Abdiel, “among the faithless faithful only he.” In the State of South Carolina, and in Charleston itself, he continued true to the Union in all its trials, early and late,--first, in those days when it was menaced by Nullification, and then again when it was openly assailed by bloody Rebellion. He died in virtuous poverty, and I am willing that Congress should make this contribution to his widow. Such a character is an example of infinite value to the Republic. I wish to show my respect for it. I should be glad to see it exalted so as to be seen by men. In the deserts of the East a fountain is always cherished as a sacred spot; such a character was a fountain in the desert. What desert more complete than South Carolina?

The joint resolution passed both Houses, and was approved by the President.[36]

OPEN VOTING IN THE ELECTION OF SENATORS; SECRET VOTING AT POPULAR ELECTIONS.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE BILL CONCERNING THE ELECTION OF SENATORS, JULY 11, 1866.

The case of Senator Stockton, and the questions which then arose with regard to the election of Senators, suggested the necessity of legislation by Congress on this subject. Accordingly a bill was reported from the Judiciary Committee, “to regulate the times and manner of holding elections for Senators in Congress.”

* * * * *

July 11th, Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, moved an amendment to the bill, allowing every Legislature to settle the manner of voting, whether _viva voce_ or by ballot. In the debate that ensued, Mr. Sumner said:--