Part 11

But I may be reminded that there are precedents. How many precedents are there for such a proceeding? We are familiar with all of them. The latest, the most authentic, is that of Thaddeus Hyatt, proceeded against because he refused to testify before the Harper’s Ferry Investigating Committee. Is that a precedent which you are disposed to follow? I am sure you would not, if you read the weighty argument in that proceeding made by the late John A. Andrew, and Samuel E. Sewall, of Massachusetts, the accomplished jurist, who still survives to us. Go still further back and you have the case, entirely like that before us, of Nugent,--who was not pursued, I was going to say, as ferociously as the present witnesses have been pursued, for his custody was simply that of the house of the Sergeant-at-Arms, and it was recognized at that time that even that mild custody would expire with the session of the Senate. You have also the earlier precedent of 1800 in the case of Duane, which, I think, Senators would hesitate now to vindicate. Let them look at it and see whether they would sanction a similar proceeding at this day,--whether such a tyranny could go on without shocking the public conscience, and being recognized universally as an assault upon the liberty of the press.[120]

Those are the cases furnished by the history of the Senate. Lord Denman, in the case of _Stockdale_ v. _Hansard_, the famous case to which I have referred, gives an answer to them as follows: I quote from the ninth volume of Adolphus and Ellis’s Reports, page 155:--

“The practice of a ruling power in the State is but a feeble proof of its legality. I know not how long the practice of raising ship-money had prevailed before the right was denied by Hampden; general warrants had been issued and enforced for centuries before they were questioned in actions by Wilkes and his associates, who, by bringing them to the test of law, procured their condemnation and abandonment. I apprehend that acquiescence on this subject proves, in the first place, too much; for the admitted and grossest abuses of privilege have never been questioned by suits in Westminster Hall.”

This proceeding has analogy with one well known in English history, that of the Star-Chamber Court, which you will find described by Mr. Hallam in his “Constitutional History of England,” in chapter eight, and I refer to it merely for the sake of one single sentence which I cite from this great author:--

“But precedents of usurped power cannot establish a _legal authority_ in defiance of the acknowledged law.”[121]

But where is the _legal authority_ for the imprisonment of these witnesses? Only in mere inference, mere deduction,--the merest inference; but surely you will not take away the liberty of the citizen on any such shadowy, evanescent apology, which is no apology, but a sham, and nothing else. I have already called attention to the argument of Governor Andrew and Hon. S. E. Sewall, which will be found in the Congressional Globe under date of March 9, 1860. Did time permit, I should quote from it at length; but I commend it to the Senate and all inquirers.

As an illustration of the doubts which environ this question, I call attention to the case of _Sanborn_ v. _Carleton_,[122] where Chief-Justice Shaw, of Massachusetts, gave the opinion of the Court. The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. CARPENTER] will not question his character. After stating that “it is admitted in the arguments that there is no express provision in the Constitution of the United States giving this authority in terms,”--that is, the alleged authority of the Senate,--he proceeds to say that there are questions on this subject “manifestly requiring great deliberation and research.” And yet Senators treat them as settled. The Chief-Justice then proceeds to announce that a warrant issued by order of the Senate of the United States for the arrest of a witness for contempt in refusing to appear before a Committee of the Senate, and addressed only to the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate, cannot be served in Massachusetts by a deputy. But this very question arises in the present proceedings. The managing editor of the “Tribune,” Mr. Whitelaw Reid, was summoned by a deputy, and not by the Sergeant-at-Arms. Gracefully yielding to the illegal summons, he appeared before the Committee; but the question of power still remains; and this very question adds to the embarrassments of the subject.

The extent of the abuse now in question will be seen, if I call the attention of the Senate to the last Report of the Committee of Investigation. By that Report it appears that they undertook to examine two agents of the Telegraph Company, who, finally, at the last moment, when asked to make a definitive statement with regard to the copy of the Treaty lodged with them for communication to New York, declined to answer. And you have now in this usurpation of the Senate an attempt to break into the telegraph-offices of the United States. You raise, for the first time in this Chamber, one of the great questions of the times. Can you do any such thing?

MR. NYE [of Nevada]. I should like to ask the Senator from Massachusetts if the courts have not broken into the telegraph-offices?

MR. SUMNER. I am not speaking about the courts. I am speaking about the Senate of the United States.

MR. NYE. I ask the Senator if the Senate of the United States, in this investigation, as long as it exists, has not all the authority of a court?

MR. SUMNER. I have already stated that it has not,--that it has not the authority of a justice of the peace. The Senate proposes to break into the telegraph-offices of the United States. In the guise of privilege, it enters those penetralia and insists that the secrets shall be disclosed. What is the difference between a communication by telegraph and a communication by letter? Is there not a growing substitution of the telegram for the letter? Has not this taken place to an immense extent in England? Is it not now taking place to an immense extent in our own country?

Now, Sir, mark the limitation of my language. I do not mean to say that the telegram is entitled to all the sacredness of the letter; but I do insist that the Senate, before it undertakes to break into the telegraph-offices of the United States, shall calmly consider the question, and see to what end the present disposition will carry them. Senators who have not entirely forgotten the recent history of England know that the powerful Cabinet of Sir Robert Peel for a time trembled under the imputation that one of its ablest members, Sir James Graham, who, Mr. Webster told me, in his judgment, was the best speaker in Parliament, had authorized the opening of the letters of Mazzini at the Post-Office. The subject was brought before Parliament night after night. You shall see how it was treated. The Liberal member from Finsbury, Mr. Duncombe, in presenting it first,--I read from Hansard,--after inveighing against the opening of letters, said:--

“That was a system which the people of this country would not bear, which they ought not to bear; and he hoped, after the exposure which had taken place, that some means would be adopted for counteracting this insidious conduct of her Majesty’s ministers. It was disgraceful to a free country that such a system should be tolerated. It might do in Russia, ay, or even in France, or it might do in the Austrian dominions, it might do in Sardinia; but it did not suit the free air of this free country.”[123]

Lord Denman, always on the side of Freedom, at the time Chief-Justice of England, in the House of Lords said:--

“Could anything be more revolting to the feeling than that any man might have all his letters opened in consequence of some information respecting him having been given to the Secretary of State, and that the contents of those letters, which he might have never received, might be made use of for the purpose of proceeding against him in a court of justice? The letters of a man might be opened, and he might not have the slightest intimation that he was betrayed. Now is such a state of things to be tolerated in a civilized country? He would say, without the slightest hesitation, that it ought not to be borne with for a single hour.”[124]

Lord Brougham observed that--

“He had not expressed any approval of the system; on the contrary, he distinctly stated that _nothing but absolute necessity for the safety of the State would justify it_.”[125]

I might occupy your time till evening in adducing the strong language of reprobation which was employed at that time. I will conclude with an extract from a speech of that remarkable Irish orator, Mr. Sheil, as follows:--

“That which is deemed utterly scandalous in private life ought not to be tolerated in any department of the State; and from the Statute-Book, which it dishonors, this ignominious prerogative ought to be effaced forever.”[126]

That brings me to the point, Sir, that there was an old statute of Queen Anne which authorized the opening of letters at the Post-Office under the order of a Secretary of State;[127] but, notwithstanding that old statute, the system was reprobated. And now it is proposed, in the maintenance of the privileges of the Senate, not in the administration of justice before any court, but in the enforcement of the privileges of the Senate, to penetrate the secrets of the Telegraph. I will not undertake to say that you cannot do it. I content myself now with calling attention to the magnitude of the question, and adducing it as a new reason why you should hesitate in this whole business. You see to what it conducts. You see in what direction you are travelling. You see how, if you persevere, you will shock the conscience and the sensibilities of the American people.

I do not believe that the American people will willingly see the Telegraph rifled, any more than they will see the Post-Office rifled, in order to maintain medieval, antediluvian privileges of the Senate,--especially when those privileges cannot be deduced from any text of the Constitution, but are simply inferred from the ancient, primeval Law and Usage of Parliament. Not only the orators, but the wits of the time, denounced the attempt in England to open letters. Punch caricatured the Secretary who attempted it as “Paul Pry at the Post-Office.”[128] But is not the Senate in the Report of our Committee “Paul Pry at the Telegraph-Office?”

I make these remarks with a view of opening to the Senate the importance of the question before them, that they may once more hesitate and withdraw to the safe ground of the Constitution and the Law; for there is nothing in the Constitution or in the Law that can sanction the continued imprisonment of these witnesses. Even suppose your proceedings have been from the beginning in all respects just and proper, even suppose that you can vindicate them, in regard to which I beg leave to express a sincere doubt, you cannot vindicate the attempt to continue these witnesses in custody when you go away. Then they are as free as you. If they are detained in prison, it is only because you yourselves are imprisoned here in the discharge of your responsible duties. When your imprisonment comes to an end, theirs comes to an end also. You cannot go home and leave them captives. The Law will step in and take them from your clutch. Better, then, in advance, by a proper and generous resolution, to order their discharge, so that the Law will not be compelled to do what you fail to do.

The resolution was agreed to,--Yeas 23, Nays 13.

THE HAYTIAN MEDAL.

RESPONSE TO THE LETTER OF PRESENTATION, JULY 13, 1871.

The Medal was placed in Mr. Sumner’s hands July 13, 1871, by General Preston, the Haytian Minister, together with the following letter, signed by the President and several distinguished citizens of the Republic:--

“LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY! REPUBLIC OF HAYTI.

“_To the Hon. Charles Sumner, Senator of Massachusetts_:--

“HONORABLE SENATOR,--The independence of Hayti has been our object. To affirm the aptitude of the black race for civilization and self-government, by your eloquence and your high morality you have made free four millions of blacks in the United States. In defending our independence on two solemn occasions, you have protected and defended something more august even than the liberty of the blacks in America. It is the dignity of a black people seeking to place itself, by its own efforts, at the banquet of the civilized world. Hayti thanks you. She will be able to justify your esteem, and to maintain herself at the height of her mission, marching in the path of progress. In the name of the Haytian people, we pray you to accept, as a feeble testimony of its gratitude, this medal, which will perpetuate in ages to come the recollection of the services which you have rendered to us as citizens of the world, and to black Humanity.”

Mr. Sumner at the time expressed his gratitude, and said that he would communicate with the signers in writing. That same evening he sent an informal note to the Minister, saying that he feared he should feel constrained to decline the present, and subsequently replied to the letter of presentation as follows:--

WASHINGTON, July 13, 1871.

GENTLEMEN,--I have received to-day, by the hands of your Minister at Washington, the beautiful medal which you have done me the honor of presenting to me in the name of the Haytian people, together with the accompanying communication bearing so many distinguished names, among which I recognize that of the estimable President of the Republic. Allow me to say, most sincerely, that I do not deserve this token, nor the flattering terms of your communication. I am only one of many who have labored for the enfranchisement of the African race, and who yet stand ready to serve at all times the sacred cause; nor have I done anything except in the simple discharge of duty. I could not have done otherwise without the rebuke of my conscience.

In this service I have acted always under promptings which with me were irresistible. Like you, I hail the assured independence of Hayti as important in illustrating the capacity of the African race for self-government; and I rejoice to know that distinguished Haytians recognize the necessity of clinging to national life, not only for the sake of their own Republic, but as an example for the benefit of that vast race over which the white man has so long tyrannized. Your successful independence will be the triumph of the black man everywhere, in all the isles of the sea, and in all the unknown expanse of the African continent, marking a great epoch of civilization. In cultivating a sentiment of nationality, you will naturally insist upon that equality among nations which is your right. Self-government implies self-respect. In the presence of International Law all nations are equal. As well deprive a citizen of equality before the law as deprive a nation. You will also insist upon that Christian rule, as applicable to nations as to individuals, of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. Following it always in your own conduct, and expecting others to follow it towards you, will you ever forget that sentiment of Humanity by which all men are one, with common title, with common right?

I rejoice, again, in the assurance you give that Hayti is prepared to advance in the path of Progress. Here I offer my best wishes, with the ardent aspiration that the two good angels, Education and Peace, may be her guides and support in this happy path. With education for the people, and with peace, foreign and domestic, especially everywhere on the island, the independence of Hayti will be placed beyond the assaults of force or the intrigues of designing men, besides being an encouragement to the African race everywhere.

I trust that you will receive with indulgence these frank words in response to the communication with which you have honored me: they will show at least my constant sympathy with your cause.

And now, Gentlemen, I throw myself again on your indulgence, while expressing the hope that you will not suspect me of insensibility to your generous present, if I add, that, considering the text of the Constitution of the United States and the service you have intended to commemorate, I deem it my duty to return the beautiful medal into your hands. To this I am constrained by the spirit, if not by the letter of the Constitution, which forbids any person in my situation from accepting any present of any kind whatever from a foreign State. Though this present is not strictly from the State of Hayti, yet, when I observe, that, according to the flattering inscription, it is from the Haytian people, and that the communication accompanying it is signed by the President and eminent magistrates of Hayti, and still further that it is in recognition of services rendered by me as a Senator of the United States, I feel that I cannot receive it without acting in some measure contrary to the intention of the Constitution which I am bound to support. In arriving at this conclusion I have been governed by that same sense of duty which on the occasions to which you refer made me your advocate, and which with me is a supreme power. While thus resigning this most interesting token, I beg you to believe me none the less grateful for the signal honor you have done me.

Accept for yourselves and for your country all good wishes, and allow me to subscribe myself, Gentlemen,

Your devoted friend,

CHARLES SUMNER.

The medal was subsequently presented by the Haytian Government to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and deposited in the State Library.

EQUALITY OF RIGHTS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

LETTER TO GEORGE W. WALKER, PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS OF JEFFERSON, TEXAS, JULY 28, 1871.

Mr. Walker having written to Mr. Sumner, asking his views in regard to the management of public schools, &c., the latter replied as follows:--

WASHINGTON, 28th July, 1871.

DEAR SIR,--As in Europe there will be no durable tranquillity until Republican Government prevails, so among us there will be a similar failure until Equality before the Law is completely established,--at the ballot-box,--in the court-house,--in the public school,--in the public hotel,--and in the public conveyance, whether on land or water. At least, so it seems to me.

I doubt if I can add materially to the argument which you have already received, but, with your permission, I ask attention to the point that _equality_ is not found in _equivalents_. You cannot give the colored child any equivalent for equality.

Accept my best wishes, and believe me, dear Sir,

Faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

PEACE AND THE REPUBLIC FOR FRANCE.

REMARKS IN MUSIC HALL, BOSTON, INTRODUCING M. ATHANASE COQUEREL, OF PARIS, OCTOBER 9, 1871.

At the first of two lectures entitled “The Two Sieges of Paris,” by M. Coquerel, Mr. Sumner, being called to preside, said:--

I cannot forget, Ladies and Gentlemen, that in other years the enjoyments of Paris were heightened for me, as I listened, more than once, to an eloquent French preacher, on whose words multitudes hung with rapture while he unfolded Christian truth. The scene, though distant in time, rises before me, and I enjoy again that voice of melody, and that rare union of elegance with earnestness, of amenity with strength, which were so captivating; nor do I know that I have since witnessed in any pulpit or assembly, or on any platform, more magnetic power visibly appearing as the orator drew to himself the listening throng, and all commingled into one.

It is now my grateful duty to welcome the son of that orator, who, with his father’s genius, visits us on an errand of charity.

He will speak to you of Paris the Beautiful, and of the double tragedy only recently enacted, where the bursting shells of a foreign foe were followed by the more direful explosions of domestic feud. The story is sad, among the saddest in history; but it is a wonderful chapter, with most instructive lesson.

Knowing our honored guest by his life, I am sure that to him war is detestable, while Republican Government is his aspiration for France. Were all Frenchmen of his mind, the deadly war-fever would disappear, and the Republic would be established on a foundation not to be shaken; and then would France rise to glories which she has never before reached. Plainly, at this epoch of civilization, there are two Great Commandments which this powerful nation cannot disobey with impunity. The first is Peace; and the second, which is like unto the first, is the Republic. But the Republic is Peace,--most unlike the Empire, which was always war in disguise.

It is sometimes said, somewhat lightly, that France is a Republic without Republicans. A great mistake. Was not Lafayette a Republican? And I now have the honor of presenting to you another.

THE GREAT FIRE AT CHICAGO, AND OUR DUTY.

SPEECH AT FANEUIL HALL, AT A MEETING FOR THE RELIEF OF SUFFERERS AT CHICAGO, OCTOBER 10, 1871.

The meeting was at noon, and the chair taken by the Mayor, Hon. William Gaston. Hon. Alexander H. Rice introduced resolutions, and spoke, when Mr. Sumner followed:--

MR. MAYOR AND FELLOW-CITIZENS:--

I come forward to second the resolutions moved by my friend Mr. Rice, and to express my hope that they may be adopted unanimously, and then acted upon vigorously.

Fellow-Citizens, I had expected to be elsewhere to-day; but, thinking of the distress of distant friends and countrymen, my heart was too full for anything else, and, putting aside other things, I have come to Faneuil Hall, as a simple volunteer, to help swell this movement of sympathy and beneficence.

This is a meeting for action; but are we not told that eloquence is _action, action, action_? And most true is it now. Help for the suffering is the highest eloquence. The best speech is a subscription. And he is the orator whose charity is largest.

“Thrice he gives who quickly gives.” This is a familiar saying from the olden time. Never was it more applicable than now. Destruction has been swift; let your gifts be swift also. If the Angel Charity is not as quick of wing as the Fire-Fiend, yet it is more mighty and far-reaching. Against the Fire-Fiend I put the Angel Charity.

According to another saying handed down by ancient philosophy, that is the best government where a wrong to a single individual is resented as an injury to all. This sentiment is worthy of careful meditation. It implies the solidarity of the community, and the duty of coöperation. There is no wrong now, but an immense calamity, in which individuals suffer. Be it our duty to treat this calamity of individuals as the calamity of all.

Who does not know Chicago? Most have visited it, and seen it with the eye; but all know its pivotal position, making a great centre, and also its immense growth and development. In a few years, beginning as late as 1833, it has become a great city; and now it is called to endure one of those visitations which in times past have descended upon great cities. Much as it suffers, it is not alone. The catalogue discloses companions in the past.