Part 8

MR. PRESIDENT,--I was impressed by a remark of the Senator from Illinois [Mr. TRUMBULL], to the effect, that, while regulating the election of Senators, it would be well to require uniformity in all respects. I was impressed by the remark, for it seemed to me a key to this whole question. If it be of importance to require uniformity in all respects, then it seems to me we should not fail to prescribe in all respects the manner of the election. Nothing should be left uncertain. This, I understand, the bill before us undertakes to do. The amendment of the Senator from Maine, if adopted, would leave the manner of election in one important particular open to the caprice of each Legislature, so that one Legislature might act in one way and another in another way,--one might choose Senators by open vote, and another by secret vote.

Now, Sir, I remark, in the first place, that there should be uniformity. The question, then, is, Which system shall be adopted,--open voting, or secret voting? While I am entirely satisfied that at popular elections secret voting is preferable, and that every citizen, when about to vote at any such election, has a right to the protection of secrecy, I do not see my way to the same conclusion with regard to votes in a representative capacity. Such votes do not belong to the individual, if I may so express myself, but to his constituents. A sound policy requires that the constituent should be able to see the vote given by the representative; but that can be only where it is open. This argument seems to me unanswerable in principle.

Reference has been made to the English system; and I am glad to adduce it for example, not in the election of members of Parliament, but in elections by Parliament itself, as in the choice of Speaker. According to the principle I have already stated, elections for members of Parliament should enjoy the protection of secrecy, which they do not, while the representative in Parliament should be held to vote in such a way that his constituents may know what he does, and this is the English rule. The Speaker of the House of Commons is chosen by open voting, or _viva voce_.

MR. FESSENDEN. We do not do it here in the election of a President of the Senate.

MR. SUMNER. But I am disposed to believe that in not doing it we fail to follow the best example. There is no question now with regard to the manner of voting at popular elections. Our present question concerns the manner of voting in a representative capacity, and here British precedent is in favor of open voting.

The rule at popular elections in our own country has not been uniform. In some States open voting has prevailed from the beginning; in others, voting has been by ballot. The origin of these differences, while curious historically, is not without interest in this debate. I think I do not err in saying that the example of England was early recognized in Virginia and the more southern States, also in New York after the withdrawal of Holland. The Western States, including Kentucky, I need not remind the Senate, were carved out of Virginia. The great Northwest Territory was originally part of Virginia, and I presume that the habit which the Senator from Illinois tells us prevails throughout that region was derived originally from Virginia, as the latter State derived it originally from England. In New England the usage is otherwise; nor is it difficult to trace its origin. New England borrowed her system of secret voting at popular elections from the Puritan corporation which originally planted its settlements. By the Law of Corporations a majority governs, and this rule was practically enforced by secret voting. Here the simplicity of the times harmonized with classical example. Beans were used for ballots. A candidate being named, the elector voted by dropping a black bean or white bean into a box. The rule at popular elections was carried into elections by the Legislature. These early settlers were not the first to employ beans for ballots. The law of Athens enjoined that their magistrates should be chosen by a ballot of beans: so we are told by Lucian, in his Dialogues.[37] In other places voting was by black and white pebbles.[38] These instances, besides showing a curious parallel with our New England way, illustrate the history of secret voting.

This brief statement shows the origin of the opposite rules in popular elections among us,--the South and West receiving theirs from Virginia and from England, and New England receiving hers from the practice of a Puritan corporation. I ought to mention that Rhode Island, which was organized under a charter from Charles the Second, was an exception; but in other States the original rule of secrecy in popular elections has prevailed from the beginning.

* * * * *

There is no question before us with regard to popular elections. We are considering how men should vote in a representative capacity. Much as I am in favor of secret voting at the polls, I cannot hesitate in declaring for open voting wherever men represent others. Nor can I see any reason for secrecy in elections by a legislative body which is not equally strong for secrecy in voting on the passage of laws. But nobody would dispense with the ayes and noes in our daily business. To my mind the question is clear. Republican institutions will gain by establishing the accountability of the representative, and I cannot doubt that this principle should be our guide in determining the manner of electing Senators under the National Constitution.

The amendment of Mr. Fessenden was rejected,--Yeas 6, Nays 28.

The bill passed the Senate,--Yeas 25, Nays 11,--also the House of Representatives, and was approved by the President.[39]

MAIL SERVICE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE SANDWICH ISLANDS.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON A JOINT RESOLUTION RELEASING THE PACIFIC MAIL STEAMSHIPS FROM STOPPING AT THE SANDWICH ISLANDS ON THEIR ROUTE TO JAPAN AND CHINA, JULY 17, 1866.

The Senate having under consideration a joint resolution releasing the Pacific Mail Steamship Company from the portion of their contract requiring them to stop at the Sandwich Islands on their route to Japan and China, Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, moved to require, as a condition of release, the establishment of a monthly mail steamship line between San Francisco and the Sandwich Islands.

Mr. Sumner said:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--This question is not free from embarrassment, especially where one is in favor of the line to Japan, and also in favor of a line to the Sandwich Islands, as is the case with myself. I am anxious to see each of these lines established, believing each important to the general welfare, and especially to the commercial interests of the country. But, strong as is my desire, I am not able to see how the line to Japan can be advantageously held to turn aside and stop at the Sandwich Islands. To bring these two objects into one voyage is not unlike the idea of the elderly person who wished her Bible to be the smallest size book and the largest size type. The two things do not go together.

And yet, Sir, I confess that my interest in the Sandwich Islands inclines me to do all that I can to strengthen and increase our relations with them. I do not forget that these islands, though originally discovered by a British navigator, are mainly indebted for their present civilization to the United States. Missionaries of our country have planted churches and schools at an expense of at least a million dollars. One of our countrymen, the late John Pickering, of Boston, the eminent philologist and scholar, invented the alphabet by which the native language was reduced to a written text. The whalers of New England have made these islands a resting-place. Our ships on their way to China have made them a half-way house. Of all the foreign ships which reach there five sixths are of our country. Such are the ties of beneficence and of commerce by which we are bound to these islands. No other nation there has an interest comparable in character or amount to ours. Meanwhile the native population is constantly decaying, so that I presume now it is not more than fifty thousand.

This brief review furnishes a glimpse of our interest in these islands. They are the wards of the United States. We cannot turn away from them. The Government must add its contribution also. On this account I have heard with pleasure that a national ship, under the command of one of our most intelligent officers, is to be stationed at the Sandwich Islands. Her presence will exercise a salutary influence in sustaining the interests of our people. This is something. But I confess that I should like to see these islands bound to our continent by a steam line.

While declaring this desire, with my reasons for it, I am not satisfied that it is proper to require the Japan line to perform this service. It is clear, from unanswerable testimony, that the stoppage of this line cannot be effected without such a deviation as materially to interfere with its operations.

The testimony presented by the report is positive. Here, for instance, is what is said by that eminent authority, Admiral Davis:--

“These considerations with regard to the eastern voyage appear to dispose of the whole question. They show that touching at the Sandwich Islands, on the return from China, would prolong the voyage so many days unnecessarily that an additional line of steamers must soon be established, provided the intercourse between China and America is to acquire that importance which is confidently expected.”

This concerns the voyage from Japan to San Francisco. But Admiral Davis is also against stopping at the islands on the outward voyage.

It seems clear, then, that the Japanese line, in order to be effective, and to accomplish what is so much desired, must be left to itself, without being obliged to turn aside for any incidental purpose. It must be a Japanese line, and nothing else; and you must not forget, that, just in proportion as you impose upon it any additional obligations, you will impair its efficiency as one of the splendid links of commerce destined to put a girdle round the globe.

I am ready, therefore, to release the Japanese line from stopping at the Sandwich Islands; but at the same time I declare my hope that some other means will be found to secure a line to these islands.

In releasing the Company from this service, I am willing to leave to them the full subsidy already appropriated; but I think they should be held to shorten their voyage in proportion to the time gained. This provision will remove an objection which has been made.

The joint resolution, as amended, passed the Senate,--Yeas 24, Nays 15,--but it was not considered in the House of Representatives. At the next session a bill became a law, authorizing the establishment of ocean mail steamship service between the United States and the Hawaiian Islands.[40]

TENNESSEE NOT SUFFICIENTLY RECONSTRUCTED.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON A JOINT RESOLUTION DECLARING TENNESSEE AGAIN ENTITLED TO SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS, JULY 21, 1866.

The Senate considered a joint resolution from the House of Representatives “declaring Tennessee again entitled to Senators and Representatives in Congress,” for which a substitute was reported by Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, from the Judiciary Committee. The joint resolution from the House and the proposed substitute each had a preamble. In the debate, Mr. Sumner said:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--The question, as I understand it, is between two preambles. I agree with my friend from Illinois, that the preamble reported by him in many respects has the advantage of that from the House. It is fuller, and in its structure better. I am glad it sets forth how Tennessee lost her representation here, and also how she may again be rehabilitated. But, while according merit to the Senator’s preamble in that respect, there are other particulars in which it fails. He himself has already recognized that it is no better than that of the House, when it sets forth that

“the body of the people of Tennessee have, by a proper spirit of obedience, shown to the satisfaction of Congress the return of said State to due allegiance to the Government, laws, and authority of the United States.”

Here the two preambles are alike; there is no advantage in one over the other. But I understand the Senator is willing to alter this clause. If he consents to the alteration, and the alteration is made, then in this respect his preamble will be superior to that of the House. Clearly, Sir, the assumption is false; “the body of the people of Tennessee have” not, “by a proper spirit of obedience, shown to the satisfaction of Congress the return of said State to due allegiance to the Government, laws, and authority of the United States.” I may go too far, when I say it is false that Tennessee has shown a proper spirit, to the satisfaction of Congress,--because, if Congress votes that, it will not be for me, or for any one else, to say it has voted a falsehood; but I do say Tennessee has not shown a proper spirit of obedience in the body of her people. All the evidence which thickens in the air from that State, and has been darkening our sky during all this winter, shows that Tennessee has not that spirit of obedience in the body of her people. Why, Sir, only this winter, the other House has been constrained to send a commission to Tennessee to investigate an outrage of unparalleled atrocity growing out of this very rebel spirit. How can the Senate aver that the body of that people, thus saturated with the spirit of disloyalty, thus set on fire and inflamed by this hatred to the Union, have shown to the satisfaction of Congress a proper spirit of obedience? Sir, you err, if you put in your statute-book any such assertion, which is historically untrue. You cannot make it true by your averment. History hereafter, when it takes up its avenging pen, will record the falsehood to your shame.

Mr. Sumner then adduced evidence of the actual spirit in Tennessee, when he was interrupted by Mr. Grimes, of Iowa, who referred to the testimony of generals and civilians. Mr. Sumner continued:--

That does not go to the question whether we can aver that there is a proper spirit of obedience in the body of her people. No general says there is a proper spirit of obedience in the body of her people. I challenge the Senator to cite the testimony showing a proper spirit of obedience in the body of her people. Generals testify that in their opinion it would be better to admit representatives from Tennessee on this floor and the floor of the other House. That is another question. Logically, it is not before me yet. I am now speaking of the erroneous character of this preamble. But I understand that the Senator from Illinois is willing to alter his preamble. I believe I am right,--am I not?

MR. TRUMBULL. Yes, Sir; I am willing those words should go out.

MR. SUMNER. They ought to go out; and if they do go out, it will make his preamble in this respect superior to that from the House.

But there is another allegation in the Senator’s preamble, which I must say is as erroneous as that on which I have remarked. He there declares, and calls upon us to declare, that the constitution adopted by Tennessee is republican in form. A constitution which disfranchises more than one quarter of its population republican in form! What, Sir, is a republican form of government? It is a government founded on the people and the consent of the governed. Sir, the constitution of Tennessee is not founded on the consent of the governed. It cannot invoke in its behalf that great principle of the Declaration of Independence; therefore it is not republican in form. And when you allege that it is republican in form, permit me to say, you make an allegation false in fact. I do not raise any question of theory, but I submit that a constitution which on its face disfranchises more than one fourth of the citizens cannot be republican in form. You, Sir, will make a terrible mistake, if at this moment of your history you undertake to recognize it as such. You will inflict a blow upon republican institutions. I hope the Senator from Illinois, as he has consented to one amendment, will consent to another, and will strike out the words declaring this constitution republican in form and in harmony with the Constitution of the United States. Do not compel us to aver what history will look at with scorn. Who can doubt, when this war is considered gravely and calmly in the tranquillity of the future, that the historian must bring all these events to the rigid test of principle? Bringing them to such test, it will be impossible to recognize any government like that of Tennessee either as republican in form or in harmony with the National Constitution.

Mr. Trumbull then moved to strike out the first clause objected to, and insert instead, “and has done other acts proclaiming and denoting loyalty,” which was agreed to. Mr. Sumner then moved to strike out the words “republican in form and not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States,” which was also agreed to.

Mr. Sumner then moved his proviso, already moved in the Louisiana bill and the Colorado bill,[41] that the Act should not take effect “except upon the fundamental condition that within the State there shall be no denial of the electoral franchise, or of any other rights, on account of race or color, but all persons shall be equal before the law.” This was lost,--Yeas 4, Nays 34. The four affirmative votes were, Mr. Gratz Brown, of Missouri, Mr. Pomeroy, of Kansas, Mr. Wade, of Ohio, and Mr. Sumner.

The bill passed the Senate,--Yeas 28, Nays 4,--and was approved by the President.[42] The four negative votes were, Mr. Gratz Brown, of Missouri, Mr. Buckalew, of Pennsylvania, Mr. McDougall, of California, and Mr. Sumner. Its preamble had been amended according to Mr. Sumner’s desire, but he was not ready to receive Representatives and Senators from Tennessee except on the fundamental condition moved by him.

THE SENATE CHAMBER: ITS VENTILATION AND SIZE.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE CIVIL APPROPRIATION BILL, JULY 23, 1866.

On motion of Mr. Buckalew, of Pennsylvania, a committee was appointed to consider the ventilation and sanitary condition of the Senate wing of the Capitol; and the committee made an elaborate report.

July 23d, while the Senate had under consideration the bill making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government, this Senator moved an amendment appropriating $117,685.25 for improvements approved and recommended in the report. In the debate that ensued, Mr. Sumner said:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--The Senator from Pennsylvania has entitled himself to the gratitude of all his brethren for the attention he has bestowed upon an uninviting subject, which concerns the comfort of the Senate,--I was about to say, the character of our legislation; for, while breathing this anomalous atmosphere, legislation itself must too often suffer with our bodies. But he will pardon me, if I suggest that he is not sufficiently radical in his proposition. I am aware that he is unwilling to be thought radical. The name is not pleasant to him.

MR. BUCKALEW. I have no distaste for the name. I claim to be very radical on some subjects.

MR. SUMNER. Very well. I hope he will be radical now,--in other words, that he will be thorough in his remedy for the present case.

Catching a phrase from ancient Rome, the Senator says that the roof over our heads must be destroyed, as if it were another Carthage. To my mind, this is not enough; the walls by which we are shut in must be destroyed. Our present difficulty is less with the roof than with the surrounding inclosure, separating us entirely from the open air and the light of day. Windows are natural ventilators; but we have none. Let this chamber be brought to the open air and the light of day, and Nature will do the rest. From its commanding position on a beautiful eminence, where every breeze can reach it, the Capitol will have an invigorating supply from every quarter. I doubt if any public edifice in the world can compare in site with that enjoyed by it,--and I do not forget the monumental structures of London, Paris, Vienna, or Rome. But in entering this stone cage with glass above, we renounce the advantages and opportunities of this unparalleled situation.

I would have all this massive masonry about us taken down, and the chamber brought to the windows. This change would make ventilation easy, and secure all that the Senator so anxiously recommends. It is more revolutionary than his plan. It will be expensive, very expensive, I fear; for the very completeness of the original work is an impediment to change. This Capitol, as we all see, is built for immortality. Its disadvantages will not be less permanent than its advantages, unless we apply ourselves resolutely to their revision. Without legislation and positive effort on our part, this chamber will continue uncomfortable for generations and long centuries. Senators after us, in thickening ranks, will sit here as uncomfortable as ourselves. If not for ourselves, then for those who come after us, we should initiate a change.

Besides bringing this chamber to the windows, its proportions should be reduced,--I am disposed to say one half. A chamber of one half the size would answer every purpose of business, and not fail essentially even on occasions of display. Everything is now sacrificed to the galleries. Senators are treated as the gladiators of the ancient amphitheatre, not to make “a Roman holiday,” but a Washington show. As many as fourteen or fifteen hundred people are constantly gathered in these galleries. But such surrounding multitudes are plainly inconsistent with the quiet transaction of business and the simple tone which belongs to legislation.

I am reminded of the testimony attributed to Sir Robert Peel, whose protracted parliamentary life made him an expert. Interrogated by the Committee of the House of Commons with regard to the proper size for the new chamber, he replied, that, though the House consisted of six hundred and fifty-eight members, yet that full number was rarely in attendance, so that on common occasions even a small house would not be filled, and in his judgment the chamber should be constructed with a view to the daily business rather than to the infrequent occasions when it would be crowded. His compendious conclusion was, that the House should be comfortable every day, at the risk of a tight squeeze now and then. The same idea had been expressed before by one of the best of early English writers, Thomas Fuller, who in his proverbs says: “A house had better be too little for a day than too great for a year”:[43] houses ought to be proportioned to ordinary, and not extraordinary occasions. In these concurring sayings I find practical sense.