Part 9

Plainly the Senate Chamber is too big for our daily life. It is not proportioned to ordinary occasions or every-day business. We all know that anything in a common tone of voice is heard with difficulty, unless we give special attention. Now I cannot doubt that the chamber should be so reduced that a motion or question or remark in a common tone of voice would be easily heard by every Senator. This should have been the rule for the architect at the beginning; and I would have it followed now in the change I suggest. With seven hundred listeners in the galleries, and with the large corps of reporters, the public would be in sufficient attendance, and the business of the country would be transacted more easily and advantageously.

Looking at these enormous spaces, adapted to the eye rather than to the ear, I turn with envy to that other chamber where the Senate sat so many honorable years, and listened to speeches which now belong to the permanent literature of the country. I doubt if any Senator who remembers that interesting chamber would not prefer it to this amphitheatre. For the transaction of daily business it was infinitely superior; and even on rare occasions, when the republic hung upon the voice of the orator, there were witnesses enough. The theory of our institutions was satisfied. The public was not excluded, and there were reporters to communicate promptly what was said.

The amendment was agreed to.

A SHIP-CANAL THROUGH THE ISTHMUS OF DARIEN.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE CIVIL APPROPRIATION BILL, JULY 25, 1866.

July 25th, the Senate having under consideration the bill making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government, Mr. Conness, of California, moved the following amendment:--

“To provide for a survey of the Isthmus of Darien, under the direction of the War Department, with a view to the construction of a ship-canal, in accordance with the report of the Superintendent of the Naval Observatory to the Navy Department, $40,000.”

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

I have had the advantage of cursorily examining the able and interesting report on this work by Admiral Davis. It is learned and instructive, and develops the importance of such a canal to the commerce of the United States. I need not remind you that California is necessarily interested, because it is across the Isthmus of Darien that we reach the distant part of our own country. Therefore this is to increase and extend the facilities of communication with a part of our own country. Unhappily, we are obliged to go outside of our own borders, but I do not know that it becomes on that account any the less important.

The Senate will easily see not only its practical value, but also its grandeur in an historical aspect. From the time of Charles the Fifth, one of the aspirations of Spain, and indeed of all adventurers and navigators in those seas, has been to find what was often called “the secret of the strait,” being a natural gate by which to pass from ocean to ocean. The proposition now is, not to find, but to make, a gate by which this object may be accomplished.

We may well be fascinated by the historic grandeur of the work; but I am more tempted by its practical value in promoting relations between distant parts of our own country and in helping the commerce of the world. But the pending proposition is simply to provide for surveys. There is no appropriation for the work. We do not bind ourselves in the future. Such an appropriation, whether regarded in a practical, scientific, or historic light, is amply commended. I shall gladly vote for it.

The amendment was agreed to,--Yeas 22, Nays 13.

INQUIRY INTO THE TITLE OF A SENATOR TO HIS SEAT.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON THE CREDENTIALS OF THE SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE, JULY 26, 1866.

On the presentation of the credentials of Hon. David T. Patterson as a Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Sumner moved their reference to the Committee on the Judiciary, with a view to inquiry whether he could take the oaths required by Act of Congress and the rule of the Senate.[44] In remarks on this motion, Mr. Sumner referred to the case of Mr. Stark, of Oregon.[45] Afterwards, in reply to Mr. Grimes, of Iowa, he said:--

…

But, Sir, there was something that fell from the Senator from Iowa to which I would make a moment’s reply. He imagines, that, if we make this reference, we shall establish a dangerous precedent; and he even goes so far as to imagine the possibility that he or his colleague, arriving from the patriotic State of Iowa, may find their credentials called in question. Sir, the Senator forgets for a moment the history of the country: he forgets that we have just emerged from a great civil war,--that the State of Tennessee took part in that war,--and that the very question now under consideration is, whether the gentleman presenting himself as a Senator was compromised by that war.

If in the State of Iowa there should unhappily be a rebellion, and if public report should announce that our patriot friend had taken part in it to such an extent as to sit on the bench as a judge, enjoying its commission and swearing allegiance to it, then should he present himself with credentials as a Senator, I think we should be justified in asking an inquiry; and that is the extent of what I ask now. I take the case the Senator from Iowa supposes, but remind you of well-known facts which he omits; and there, permit me to say, is the whole question. If the case of Tennessee were an ordinary case, like that of Iowa, there would be no occasion and no justification for inquiry. But it is not an ordinary case; it is a case incident to the anomalous condition of public affairs at this moment. It cannot be treated according to the ordinary rule; it is a new case, and to meet it we must make a new precedent.

The Senator is much afraid of precedents. Sir, I am not afraid of any precedent having for its object the protection of right; and just in proportion as new circumstances arise must they be met by a new precedent. New circumstances have arisen, and you are called on to meet them frankly, simply.

The motion prevailed,--Yeas 20, Nays 14.

* * * * *

July 27th, the Committee reported that Mr. Patterson, “upon taking the oaths required by the Constitution and laws, be admitted to a seat in the Senate of the United States”; and this report was adopted,--Yeas 21, Nays 11,--Mr. Sumner voting in the negative.

NO MORE STATES WITH THE WORD “WHITE” IN THE CONSTITUTION.

SPEECHES IN THE SENATE, ON THE ADMISSION OF NEBRASKA AS A STATE, JULY 27, DECEMBER 14 AND 19, 1866, AND JANUARY 8, 1867.

The question of admitting Nebraska as a State followed that of Colorado, and with the same effort on the part of Mr. Sumner to require equal rights without distinction of color in the constitution of the new State. Nebraska, like Colorado, failed in this respect. Unquestionably, the discussion on these two cases prepared the way for the requirement of equal suffrage in the Rebel States.

* * * * *

July 27th, Mr. Wade, of Ohio, Chairman of the Committee on Territories, moved to proceed with the bill for the admission of the State of Nebraska into the Union, and urged its passage. Mr. Sumner followed.

MR. PRESIDENT,--I am very sorry to occupy the attention of the Senate even for one minute, but I shall be very brief. The Senator [Mr. WADE] tells us that the majority of the people in favor of the State government was about one hundred and fifty; and by such a slender, slim majority you are called to invest this Territory with the powers and prerogatives of a State. The smallness of the majority is an argument against any present action; but, going behind that small majority, and looking at the number of voters, the argument increases, for the Senator tells us there were but eight thousand voters. The question is, Will you invest those eight thousand voters with the powers and prerogatives now enjoyed in this Chamber by New York and Pennsylvania and other States of this Union? I think the objection on this account unanswerable. It would be unreasonable for you to invest them with those powers and prerogatives at this time.

But, Sir, I confess that with me the prevailing objection is, that the State does not present itself with a constitution republican in form, and on this question I challenge the deliberate judgment of my excellent friend, the Senator from Ohio, who is now trying to introduce this Territory into the Union as a State. I challenge the distinguished Senator to show that a constitution which disqualifies citizens on account of color can be republican in form. Sir, I say it is not a republican government, and I am sorry that my distinguished friend lends his countenance to a government of such a character. I wish that my friend would lift himself to the argument that such a government cannot be republican, and must not be welcomed as such on this floor.

I forbear entering into the argument. Again and again I have presented it. Senators have made up their minds. Each must judge for himself. It is not without pain and trouble that I find myself constrained to differ from valued friends and associates, with whom I am always proud to agree; but I cannot recognize a constitution with the word “white” as republican. With such conviction, it is my duty to oppose the welcome of this Territory as a State just so long as I can.

Mr. Wade said in reply: “It is republican in form, but is not that kind of republicanism that I approve of. If I had my way about it, nobody would be excluded from the franchise that was a male citizen of proper age, let his color be what it would. That would be the color of republicanism that I should like the best. But to deny that under the Constitution of the United States this constitution is republican in form is to deny that we have a republic at all.… The State of Massachusetts is a little forward on this subject. I am glad of it.”

Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, Mr. Doolittle, of Wisconsin, Mr. Pomeroy, of Kansas, Mr. Howard, of Michigan, Mr. Garrett Davis, of Kentucky, Mr. Kirkwood, of Iowa, Mr. Buckalew, of Pennsylvania, Mr. Yates, of Illinois, Mr. Nye, of Nevada, and Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, took part in the debate. In the course of Mr. Nye’s remarks, the following occurred.

MR. NYE. But my conscientious friend from Massachusetts, I am terribly afraid, mistakes twinges of dyspepsia for constitutional scruples. [_Laughter._]

MR. SUMNER. I never had the dyspepsia in my life.

MR. NYE. I am glad to hear it; it is some other disease, then. [_Laughter._] This word “white” is the nightmare of his mind.

Mr. Wade, speaking again, said: “The Senator from Massachusetts has a certain one idea that covers the whole ground.… All the opposition that he really has to it is because they put the word ‘white’ in their constitution.”

Mr. Sumner moved the proviso already moved on the Louisiana and Colorado bills, requiring as a fundamental condition that within the State there should be no denial of the elective franchise or of any other right on account of race or color, and that this condition should be ratified by the voters of the Territory; which was lost,--Yeas 5, Nays 34. The Senators voting yea were Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, Mr. Morgan, of New York, Mr. Poland, of Vermont, and Mr. Sumner.

The bill then passed the Senate,--Yeas 24, Nays 18. It also passed the House of Representatives, but did not receive the signature of the President.

* * * * *

At the next session of Congress, Mr. Wade introduced another bill for the admission of Nebraska, which he afterwards reported from the Committee on Territories. Notwithstanding its constitution with the word “white,” December 14th, he moved to proceed with the consideration of this bill. Mr. Sumner was against taking it up.

…

I hope you do not forget the great act of yesterday. By solemn vote, you have recorded yourselves in favor of Human Rights, and have established them here at the National Capital. And now, Sir, you are asked to set aside Human Rights, and to forget the triumph and example of yesterday. Before you is a constitution with the word “white,”--a constitution creating a white man’s government, such as is praised by Senators on the other side,--and you are asked to recognize that disreputable instrument. I am against any such government, and I trust the Senate will not proceed with its consideration.

Do not to-day undo the good work of yesterday, nor imitate that ancient personage who unwove at night the web woven during the day, so that her work never proceeded to any end. Do not, I entreat you, unweave to-day the beautiful web of yesterday.

Instead of undoing, let us do always; nor is there any lack of measures deserving attention. There is the Bankrupt Bill, practical and beneficent in character, and involving no sacrifice of Human Rights. This is a measure of real humanity, calculated to carry tranquillity and repose into the business of the country. Besides, it has been too long postponed.

Mr. Wade replied with some warmth, when the following passage occurred.

MR. SUMNER. Mr. President, I hope to be pardoned, if I make one word of reply to the Senator. He seemed to think his argument advanced by personal allusions to myself. If I understand him, he sought to show inconsistency on my part.

MR. WADE. Yes, I think I did.

MR. SUMNER. I am at a loss to understand how the Senator can find inconsistency, unless he chooses to misunderstand facts. He assumed that I voted for the admission of Tennessee.

MR. WADE. When you said you did not, I gave it up.

MR. SUMNER. My name is recorded, on all the yeas and nays, and they were numerous, against the admission of Tennessee; and the reason I assigned was, that the constitution contained the word “white.”

MR. WADE. You voted for the Constitutional Amendment.

MR. SUMNER. Yes, I did vote for the Constitutional Amendment, in its final form;[46] but does the Senator consider himself bound to admit a Rebel State refusing the suffrage to freedmen? I wish my friend to answer that.

MR. WADE. No, I do not.

MR. SUMNER. I knew he did not.

MR. WADE. I do not know that I understand the Senator. Let me say that I should consider myself bound by the Constitutional Amendment, if the Southern States complied with it within a reasonable time; and that reasonable time, in my judgment, is nearly elapsed.

MR. SUMNER. Even with the word “white” in a constitution?

MR. WADE. Without regard to that.

MR. SUMNER. Without regard to the rights of the freedman?

MR. WADE. On complying with the requisitions of the Constitutional Amendment, I should vote for them.

MR. SUMNER. I do not agree with the Senator. I distinctly stated, when the Amendment was under discussion, that I did not accept it as a finality, and that, so far as I had a vote on this floor, I would insist that every one of these States, before its Representatives were received in Congress, should confer impartial suffrage, without distinction of color; and now I ask my friend what inconsistency there is, when I insist upon the same rule for Nebraska.

MR. WADE. I cannot see how the Senator could have misled the Southern States with that. When they complied with all we asked of them in the Constitutional Amendment, I supposed we could not refuse to let them in on those terms.… Certainly I am as much for colored suffrage as any man on this floor; but when I make such an agreement as that, I stand by it always.

MR. SUMNER. When I make an agreement, I stand by it. But I entered into no such agreement, and I do not understand that the Senate or Congress entered into any such agreement. I know that certain politicians and editors have undertaken to foist something of this sort into the Constitutional Amendment; but there was no authority for it. The Committee on Reconstruction may have reported a resolution to that effect, but they never called it up, and I know well that I offered a resolution just the contrary.

MR. DOOLITTLE. The Senator from Massachusetts will allow me?

MR. SUMNER. Certainly.

MR. DOOLITTLE. The Committee on Reconstruction reported a resolution, that, if each State should adopt this Amendment, and the Amendment should become a part of the Constitution, be adopted by a sufficient number of States, then the States might be accepted. That was what they reported.

MR. JOHNSON. It was a bill.

MR. WADE. That was the understanding I alluded to.

MR. BROWN. That was not acted upon.

MR. SUMNER. It was not acted on. I suppose that those who had it in charge did not venture to invite a vote upon it.

MR. DOOLITTLE. It was laid on the table by a vote in the House of Representatives, upon the yeas and nays.

MR. SUMNER. It never became in any respect a legislative act; therefore nobody entered legislatively into the agreement attributed to me. How the Senator could attribute it to me, in the face of constant asseveration that I would not be a party to any such agreement, surpasses comprehension.

…

So far as the Senator considered the merits of the question, I will not now reply. There may be a time for that, and the magnitude of the issue may justify me even in setting forth arguments already adduced. If I repeat myself, it is because you repeat an effort which ought never to have been made. But I enter my most earnest protest. To my mind this is a most disastrous measure. I use this word advisedly; it is disastrous because it cannot fail to impair the moral efficiency of Congress, injure its influence, and be something like a bar to the adoption of a just policy for the Rebel States. Sir, we are now seeking to obliterate the word “white” from all institutions and constitutions there; and yet Senators, with that great question before them, rush swiftly forward to welcome a new State with the word “white” in its constitution. In other days we all united, and the Senator from Ohio was earnest among the number, in saying, “No more Slave States!” I now insist upon another cry: “No more States with the word ‘white’!” On that question I part company with my friend from Ohio. He is now about to welcome them.

The motion of Mr. Wade was adopted,--Yeas 21, Nays 11,--and the bill was before the Senate for consideration. Mr. Gratz Brown then offered the proviso, offered formerly by Mr. Sumner,[47] requiring, as a fundamental condition, that there should be no denial of the elective franchise or of any other right on account of race or color, and upon the further condition that this requirement be submitted to the voters of the Territory. In the earnest debate that ensued, Mr. Sumner spoke repeatedly, especially in reply to Mr. Wade, setting forth again the objections already made to the admission of Colorado.

* * * * *

December 19th, Mr. Sumner said:--

I have another word for the Senator from Ohio. He does not see the importance of this question. It is the question of every day, a commonplace question. There is the precise difference between the Senator from Ohio and other Senators. There have been times when the Senator has most clearly seen the importance of a question of Human Rights. The Senator has not forgotten a contest in which he took part with myself against an effort to precipitate Louisiana back into this Chamber with a constitution like that of Nebraska. Now the Senator remembers it well. The Senator from Illinois [Mr. TRUMBULL] tried to put that constitution through the Senate; but, with all his abilities and the just influence that belonged to his position, he could not do it. The Senator from Ohio will not be instructed by that example. He now makes a kindred effort, seeking to introduce into the Union a State which defies the first principle of Human Rights. The Senator becomes the champion of that community. He who has so often raised his voice for Human Rights now treats the question as trivial: it is a technicality only; that is all.

Sir, can a question of Human Rights be a technicality? Can a constitution which undertakes to disfranchise a whole race be treated in that effort as only a technicality? And yet that is the position of the Senator. Why, Sir, the other day he did openly arraign the constitution of Louisiana, and the effort of our excellent President, Abraham Lincoln, who pressed it upon us. The constitution of Louisiana was odious; it should not have been presented to the Senate; and I doubt if there is any Senator on the right side who does not now rejoice that it was defeated.

Then followed a passage with Mr. Kirkwood, of Iowa, who volunteered to consider that Mr. Sumner had attacked the constitution of Iowa, when he had made no allusion to it.

MR. KIRKWOOD. He compares the case of the Territory of Nebraska to that of the lately rebellious States. I think there is a great difference between them. The people of the Territory of Nebraska are loyal men; the people of the late rebellious States are not loyal; and when he compares the one with the other, I think he does injustice to himself and to the people of that Territory.

MR. SUMNER. I made no such comparison.

MR. KIRKWOOD. He speaks of the constitution submitted by some persons in Louisiana as odious, as offensive, and compares the constitution of Nebraska and the constitution of that State, or proposed State, intending to convey the idea, I presume, that the constitution of Nebraska is odious and offensive. Now I wish to say to that Senator that the constitution of Nebraska and the constitution of Iowa in this particular are identical. Does he call the constitution of Iowa odious and offensive?… The people of Iowa are as loyal as the people of Massachusetts are.

MR. SUMNER. No doubt about it. I never said otherwise.

MR. KIRKWOOD. But he said our constitution was offensive.

MR. SUMNER. I made no allusion to the constitution of Iowa.

MR. KIRKWOOD. But you made an allusion to a constitution precisely similar in this identical point to that of Iowa.… I repeat again, I cannot see the difference between characterizing the constitution of Iowa as odious and offensive and characterizing the constitution of another State that agrees with it precisely in terms in that way.

MR. SUMMER. May I ask the Senator if he considers that provision in the constitution of Iowa right or wrong?

MR. KIRKWOOD. I conceive it to be the business of the people of Iowa, and not the business of the Senator from Massachusetts. The people of Iowa will deal with it in their own way, when they see fit; and, as a loyal people, they have the right to do so; and so, I apprehend, have the people of Nebraska.