Part 2

His honest indignation at wrong was doubtless quickened by the blood which coursed in his veins and the story which it constantly whispered. He was descended from one of those “Redemptioners,” or indented servants, transported to Pennsylvania in the middle of the last century, being a species of white slaves, among whom was one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. The eminence which John Covode reached attests the hospitality of our institutions, and shows how character triumphs over difficulties. With nothing but a common education, he improved his condition, gained riches, enlarged his mind with wisdom, and won the confidence of his fellow-citizens, until he became an example.

The death of such a citizen makes a void, but it leaves behind a life which in itself is a monument.

ITALIAN UNITY AGAIN.

LETTER TO A PUBLIC MEETING AT PITTSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA, FEBRUARY 21, 1871.

WASHINGTON, February 21, 1871.

DEAR SIR,--I cannot be at your meeting, but there will be none among you to rejoice in Italian Unity more than I do. Long has it been a desire of my heart.

May it stand firm against all its enemies, especially its greatest enemy, the temporal autocracy of the Pope!

Faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

FELIX R. BRUNOT, ESQ., Chairman.

VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, AND USURPATIONS OF WAR POWERS.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON HIS SAN DOMINGO RESOLUTIONS, MARCH 27, 1871.

The official returns to Mr. Sumner’s resolutions of December 9, 1870, and February 15, 1871, calling for the documents in the State and Navy Departments relative to the case of San Domingo,[11] gave occasion to the introduction by him, March 24, 1871, of a series of resolutions, subsequently amended to read as follows:--

Resolutions regarding the employment of the Navy of the United States on the coasts of San Domingo during the pendency of negotiations for the acquisition of part of that island.

Whereas any negotiation by one nation with a people inferior in population and power, having in view the acquisition of territory, should be above all suspicion of influence from superior force, and in testimony to this principle Spain boasted that the reïncorporation of Dominica with her monarchy in 1861 was accomplished without the presence of a single Spanish ship on the coast or a Spanish soldier on the land, all of which appears in official documents; and whereas the United States, being a Republic founded on the Rights of Man, cannot depart from such a principle and such a precedent without weakening the obligations of justice between nations and inflicting a blow upon Republican Institutions: Therefore,--

1. _Resolved_, That in obedience to correct principle, and that Republican Institutions may not suffer, the naval forces of the United States should be withdrawn from the coasts of San Domingo during the pendency of negotiations for the acquisition of any part of that island.

2. _Resolved_, That every sentiment of justice is disturbed by the employment of foreign force in the maintenance of a ruler engaged in selling his country, and this moral repugnance is increased when it is known that the attempted sale is in violation of the Constitution of the country to be sold; that, therefore, the employment of our Navy to maintain Baez in usurped power while attempting to sell his country to the United States, in open violation of the Dominican Constitution, is morally wrong, and any transaction founded upon it must be null and void.

3. _Resolved_, That since the Equality of All Nations, without regard to population, size, or power, is an axiom of International Law, as the Equality of All Men is an axiom of our Declaration of Independence, nothing can be done to a small or weak nation that would not be done to a large or powerful nation, or that we would not allow to be done to ourselves; and therefore any treatment of the Republic of Hayti by the Navy of the United States inconsistent with this principle is an infraction of International Law in one of its great safeguards, and should be disavowed by the Government of the United States.

4. _Resolved_, That since certain naval officers of the United States, commanding large war-ships, including the monitor Dictator and the frigate Severn, with powerful armaments, acting under instructions from the Executive, and without the authority of an Act of Congress, have entered one or more ports of the Republic of Hayti, a friendly nation, and under the menace of open and instant war have coerced and restrained that republic in its sovereignty and independence under International Law,--therefore, in justice to the Republic of Hayti, also in recognition of its equal rights in the Family of Nations, and in deference to the fundamental principles of our institutions, these hostile acts should be disavowed by the Government of the United States.

5. _Resolved_, That under the Constitution of the United States the power to declare war is placed under the safeguard of an Act of Congress; that the President alone cannot declare war; that this is a peculiar principle of our Government by which it is distinguished from monarchical Governments, where power to declare war, as also the treaty-making power, is in the Executive alone; that in pursuance of this principle the President cannot, by any act of his own, as by an unratified treaty, obtain any such power, and thus divest Congress of its control; and that therefore the employment of the Navy without the authority of Congress in acts of hostility against a friendly foreign nation, or in belligerent intervention in the affairs of a foreign nation, is an infraction of the Constitution of the United States, and a usurpation of power not conferred upon the President.

6. _Resolved_, That while the President, without any previous declaration of war by Act of Congress, may defend the country against invasion by foreign enemies, he is not justified in exercising the same power in an outlying foreign island, which has not yet become part of the United States; that a title under an unratified treaty is at most inchoate and contingent while it is created by the President alone, in which respect it differs from any such title created by Act of Congress; and since it is created by the President alone, without the support of law, whether in legislation or a ratified treaty, the employment of the Navy in the maintenance of the Government there is without any excuse of national defence, as also without any excuse of a previous declaration of war by Congress.

7. _Resolved_, That whatever may be the title to territory under an unratified treaty, it is positive that after the failure of the treaty in the Senate all pretext of title ceases, so that our Government is in all respects a stranger to the territory, without excuse or apology for any interference against its enemies, foreign or domestic; and therefore any belligerent intervention or act of war on the coasts of San Domingo after the failure of the Dominican treaty in the Senate is unauthorized violence, utterly without support in law or reason, and proceeding directly from that kingly prerogative which is disowned by the Constitution of the United States.

8. _Resolved_, That in any proceedings for the acquisition of part of the island of San Domingo, whatever may be its temptations of soil, climate, and productions, there must be no exercise of influence by superior force, nor any violation of Public Law, whether International or Constitutional; and therefore the present proceedings, which have been conducted at great cost of money, under the constant shadow of superior force, and through the belligerent intervention of our Navy, acting in violation of International Law, and initiating war without an Act of Congress, must be abandoned, to the end that justice may be maintained, and that proceedings so adverse to correct principles may not become an example for the future.

9. _Resolved_, That, instead of seeking to acquire part of the island of San Domingo by belligerent intervention without the authority of an Act of Congress, it would have been in better accord with the principles of our Republic and its mission of peace and beneficence, had our Government, in the spirit of good neighborhood and by friendly appeal, instead of belligerent intervention, striven for the establishment of tranquillity throughout the whole island, so that the internal dissensions of Dominica and its disturbed relations with Hayti might be brought to a close, thus obtaining that security which is the first condition of prosperity, all of which, being in the nature of good offices, would have been without any violation of International Law, and without any usurpation of War Powers under the Constitution of the United States.

On these Resolutions Mr. Sumner, March 27th, spoke as follows:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--Entering again upon this discussion, I perform a duty which cannot be avoided. I wish it were otherwise, but duty is a taskmaster to be obeyed. On evidence now before the Senate, it is plain that the Navy of the United States, acting under orders from Washington, has been engaged in measures of violence and of belligerent intervention, being war without the authority of Congress. An act of war without the authority of Congress is no common event. This is the simplest statement of the case. The whole business is aggravated, when it is considered that the declared object of this violence is the acquisition of foreign territory, being half an island in the Caribbean Sea,--and still further, that this violence has been employed, first, to prop and maintain a weak ruler, himself a usurper, upholding him in power that he might sell his country, and, secondly, to menace the Black Republic of Hayti.

Such a case cannot pass without inquiry. It is too grave for silence. For the sake of the Navy, which has been the agent, for the sake of the Administration, under which the Navy acted, for the sake of Republican Institutions, which suffer when the Great Republic makes itself a pattern of violence, and for the sake of the Republican Party, which cannot afford to become responsible for such conduct, the case must be examined on the facts and the law, and also in the light of precedent, so far as precedent holds its torch. When I speak for Republican Institutions, it is because I would not have our great example weakened before the world, and our good name tarnished. And when I speak for the Republican Party, it is because from the beginning I have been the faithful servant of that party and aspire to see it strong and triumphant. But beyond all these considerations is the commanding rule of Justice, which cannot be disobeyed with impunity.

THE QUESTION STATED.

The question which I present is very simple. It is not, whether the acquisition of the island of San Domingo, in whole or part, with a population foreign in origin, language, and institutions, is desirable, but whether we are justified in the means employed to accomplish this acquisition. The question is essentially preliminary in character, and entirely independent of the main question. On the main question there may be difference of opinion: some thinking the acquisition desirable, and others not desirable; some anxious for empire, or at least a _sanitarium_, in the tropics,--and others more anxious for a Black Republic, where the African race shall show an example of self-government by which the whole race may be uplifted; some thinking of gold mines, salt mountains, hogsheads of sugar, bags of coffee, and boxes of cigars,--others thinking more of what we owe to the African race. But whatever the difference of opinion on the main question, the evidence now before us shows too clearly that means have been employed which cannot be justified. And this is the question to which I now ask the attention of the Senate.

REASON FOR INTEREST IN THE QUESTION.

Here, Sir, I venture to relate how and at what time I became specially aroused on this question. The treaty for the annexion of the Dominican people was pending before the Senate, and I was occupied in considering it, asking two questions: first, Is it good for us? and, secondly, Is it good for them? The more I meditated these two questions I found myself forgetting the former and considering the latter,--or rather, the former was absorbed in the latter. Thinking of our giant strength, my anxiety increased for the weaker party, and I thought more of what was good for them than for us. Is annexion good for them? This was the question on my mind, when I was honored by a visit from the Assistant Secretary of State, bringing with him a handful of dispatches from San Domingo. Among these were dispatches from our Consular Agent there, who signed the treaty of annexion, from which it distinctly appeared that Baez, while engaged in selling his country, was maintained in power by the Navy of the United States. That such was the official report of our Consular Agent, who signed the treaty, there can be no question; and this official report was sustained by at least one other consular dispatch. I confess now my emotion as I read this painful revelation. Until then I had supposed the proceeding blameless, although precipitate. I had not imagined any such indefensible transgressions.

These dispatches became more important as testimony when it appeared that the writers were personally in favor of annexion. Thus, then, it stood,--that, on the official report of our own agents, we were engaged in forcing upon a weak people the sacrifice of their country. To me it was apparent at once that the acquisition of this foreign territory would not be respectable or even tolerable, unless by the consent of the people there, through rulers of their own choice, and without force on our part. The treaty was a contract, which, according to our own witnesses, was obtained through a ruler owing power to our war-ships. As such, it was beyond all question a contract obtained under duress, and therefore void, while the duress was an interference with the internal affairs of a foreign country, and therefore contrary to that principle of Non-Intervention which is now a rule of International Law. As this question presented itself, I lost no time in visiting the Navy Department, in order to examine the instructions under which our naval officers were acting, and also their reports. Unhappily, these instructions and reports were too much in harmony with the other testimony; so that the State Department and Navy Department each contained the record of the deplorable proceedings, and still they pressed the consummation. I could not have believed it, had not the evidence been explicit. The story of Naboth’s Vineyard was revived.

Violence begets violence, and that in San Domingo naturally extended. It is with nations as with individuals,--once stepped in, they go forward. The harsh menace by which the independence of the Black Republic was rudely assailed came next. It was another stage in belligerent intervention. As these things were unfolded, I felt that I could not hesitate. Here was a shocking wrong. It must be arrested; and to this end I have labored in good faith. If I am earnest, it is because I cannot see a wrong done without seeking to arrest it. Especially am I moved, if this wrong be done to the weak and humble. Then, by the efforts of my life and the commission I have received from Massachusetts, am I vowed to do what I can for the protection and elevation of the African race. If I can help them, I will; if I can save them from outrage, I must. And never before was the occasion more imminent than now.

CONTRACT FOR CESSION OF TERRITORY.

I speak only according to unquestionable reason and the instincts of the human heart, when I assert that a contract for the cession of territory must be fair and without suspicion of overawing force. Nobody can doubt this rule, whether for individuals or nations. And where one party is more powerful than another it becomes more imperative. Especially must it be sacred with a Republic, for it is nothing but the mandate of Justice. The rule is general in its application; nay, more, it is part of Universal Law, common to all municipal systems and to International Law. Any departure from this requirement makes negotiation for the time impossible. Plainly there can be no cession of territory, and especially no surrender of national independence, except as the result of war, so long as hostile cannon are frowning. The first step in negotiation must be the withdrawal of all force, coercive or minatory.

BOAST OF SPAIN.

Here the example of Spain furnishes a beacon-light. Yielding to an invitation not unlike that of Baez to the United States, this Ancient Monarchy was induced by Santana, President of Dominica, to entertain the proposition of reannexion to the Crown. Here let it be remarked that Santana was legitimate President, while Baez is a usurping Dictator. And now mark the contrast between the Ancient Monarchy and our Republic, as attested in documents. Spain boasted, in official papers, that in the act of reannexion the Dominicans were spontaneous, free, and unanimous,--that no Spanish emissaries were in the territory to influence its people, nor was there a Spanish bottom in its waters or a Spanish soldier on its land. On the question whether this boast was justified by historic facts I say nothing. My purpose is accomplished, when I show, that, in self-defence and for the good name of Spain, it was necessary to make this boast. Unhappily, no such boast can be made now. American emissaries were in the territory, with Cazneau and Fabens as leaders,--while American war-ships, including the Dictator, our most powerful monitor, properly named for the service, were in the waters with guns pointed at the people to be annexed, and American soldiers with bayonets glancing in the sun were on the decks of these war-ships, if not on the land. The contrast is complete. In the case of Spain the proceeding was an act of peace; in our case it is an act of war. The two cases are as wide asunder as peace and war.

All must feel the importance of this statement, which, I have to say, is not without official authority. I now hold in my hand the Spanish documents relating to the reannexion of Dominica, as published by the Cortes, and with your permission I will open these authentic pages. And here allow me to say that I speak only according to the documents. That Spain made the boast attests the principle.

Omitting particularities and coming at once to the precise point, I read from a circular by the Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs, addressed to diplomatic agents abroad, under date of Aranjuez, April 25, 1861, which declares the proper forbearance and caution of Spain, and establishes a precedent from which there can be no appeal:--

“The first condition, necessary and indispensable, which the Government of her Majesty requires in accepting the consequences of these events, is that the act of reïncorporation of San Domingo with the Spanish Monarchy shall be the unanimous, spontaneous, and explicit expression of the will of the Dominicans.”

The dispatch then proceeds to describe the attitude of the Spanish Government. And here it says of the events in Dominica:--

“Nor have they been the work of Spanish emigrants who have penetrated the territory of San Domingo; nor has the superior authority of Havana, nor the forces of sea and land at its disposition, contributed to them. The Captain-General of Cuba has not separated himself, nor could he depart for a moment, from the principles of the Government, and from the policy which it has followed with regard to them. _Not a Spanish bottom or soldier was on the coast or in the territory of the Republic_ when the latter by a unanimous movement proclaimed its reunion to Spain.”[12]

It will be observed with what energy of phrase the Spanish Minister excludes all suspicion of force on the part of Spain. Not only was there no Spanish ship on the coast, but not a single Spanish bottom. And then it is alleged that “the first condition” of reannexion must be “the unanimous, spontaneous, and explicit expression of the will of the Dominicans.” No foreign influence, no Spanish influence, was to interfere with the popular will. But this is nothing more than justice. Anything else is wrong.

The Spanish Government, not content with announcing this important rule in the dispatch which I have quoted, return to it in another similar dispatch, dated at Madrid, 26th May, 1861, as follows:--

“The Government of the Queen, before adopting a definitive resolution on this question, sought to acquire absolute assurance that the votes of the Dominican people had been spontaneous, free, and unanimous. The reception of the proclamation of the Queen as sovereign in all the villages of the territory of San Domingo proves _the spontaneousness and the unanimity of the movement_.”[13]

Here again is the allegation that the movement was spontaneous and unanimous, and that the Spanish Government sought to acquire absolute assurance on this essential point. This was openly recognized as the condition-precedent; and I cite it as unanswerable testimony to what was deemed essential.

On this absolute assurance the Ministers laid before the Queen in Council a decree of reannexion, with an explanatory paper, under date of 19th May, 1861, where the unanimity of the Dominican people is again asserted, and also the absence of any influence on the part of Spain:--

“Everywhere was manifested jubilee and enthusiasm in a manner unequivocal and solemn. The public authorities, following their own impulses, have obeyed the sentiment of the country, which has put its trust in them. Rarely has been seen such a concurrence, such a unanimity of wills to realize an idea, a common thought. _And all this, without having on the coast of San Domingo a single bottom, nor on the territory a soldier of Spain._”[14]

Such is the official record on which the decree of reannexion was adopted. Mark well, Sir,--a unanimous people, and not a single Spanish bottom on the coast or Spanish soldier on the territory.

CONTRAST BETWEEN SPAIN AND THE UNITED STATES.

And now mark the contrast between the Old Monarchy and the Great Republic. The recent return of the Navy Department to the Senate, in reply to a resolution introduced by me, shows how the whole island has been beleaguered by our Navy, sailing from port to port, and hugging the land with its guns. Here is the return:--

“The following are the names of the vessels which have been in the waters of the island of San Domingo since the commencement of the negotiations with Dominica, with their armaments:--

“Severn,--14 9-inch and 1 60-pounder rifle.

“Congress,--14 9-inch and 2 60-pounder rifles.

“Nantasket,--6 32-pounders, 4,500 pounds; 1 60-pounder rifle.