Part 1

Transcriber’s Note: All other volumes are available as Project Gutenberg ebooks. A list is given at the end.

Statesman Edition Vol. XX

Charles Sumner

HIS COMPLETE WORKS

With Introduction BY HON. GEORGE FRISBIE HOAR

BOSTON LEE AND SHEPARD MCM

COPYRIGHT, 1883, BY FRANCIS V. BALCH, EXECUTOR.

COPYRIGHT, 1900, BY LEE AND SHEPARD.

Statesman Edition. LIMITED TO ONE THOUSAND COPIES. OF WHICH THIS IS No. 320.

Norwood Press: NORWOOD, MASS., U.S.A.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME XX.

PAGE

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: ITS PROPER NUMBER. Remarks in the Senate, on the Bill for the Apportionment of Representatives among the States, January 29, 1872 1

REFORM AND PURITY IN GOVERNMENT: NEUTRAL DUTIES. SALE OF ARMS TO BELLIGERENT FRANCE. Speech in the Senate, February 28, 1872 5

PARLIAMENTARY LAW ON THE APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEES OF THE SENATE. Two Protests against the Competency of the Senate Committee to investigate the Sale of Arms to France, March 26 and 27, 1872 45

BOOKS ON THE FREE LIST. Remarks in the Senate on moving an Amendment to a Tariff Bill, March 27, 1872 61

THE NASBY LETTERS. Introduction to the Collection, April 1, 1872 65

ADVICE TO THE COLORED PEOPLE. Letter to the National Convention of Colored People at New Orleans, April 7, 1872 68

DIPLOMATIC AGENTS OF THE UNITED STATES NOT TO ACCEPT GIFTS FROM FOREIGN POWERS. Remarks in the Senate, May 2, 1872 70

PRESERVATION OF THE PARK AT WASHINGTON. Remarks in the Senate, May 15, 1872 72

HOURS OF LABOR. Letter to the Convention of the Massachusetts Labor Union in Boston, May 25, 1872 79

ARBITRATION AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR WAR. Resolutions in the Senate, May 31, 1872, concerning Arbitration as a Substitute for War in determining Differences between Nations 80

REPUBLICANISM _vs._ GRANTISM. Speech in the Senate, May 31, 1872 83

INTEREST AND DUTY OF COLORED CITIZENS IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. Letter to Colored Citizens, July 29, 1872 173

LETTER TO SPEAKER BLAINE. August 5, 1872 196

RETROSPECT AND PROMISE. Address at a Serenade before his House in Washington, August 9, 1872 202

FREDERICK DOUGLASS AND PRESIDENT GRANT. Letter to Hon. Andrew D. White, President of Cornell University, August 10, 1872 205

GREELEY OR GRANT? Speech intended to be delivered at Faneuil Hall, Boston, September 3, 1872 209

NO NAMES OF BATTLES WITH FELLOW-CITIZENS ON THE ARMY-REGISTER OR THE REGIMENTAL COLORS OF THE UNITED STATES. Bill in the Senate, December 2, 1872 255

TRIBUTE TO HORACE GREELEY. Remarks intended to be made in the Senate, in seconding a Motion for Adjournment on the Occasion of Mr. Greeley’s Funeral, December 3, 1872 256

RELIEF OF BOSTON. Remarks in the Senate, December 12, 1872 258

THE LATE HON. GARRETT DAVIS, SENATOR OF KENTUCKY. Remarks in the Senate, on his Death, December 18, 1872 261

EQUALITY IN CIVIL RIGHTS. Letter to the Committee of Arrangements for the Celebration of the Anniversary of Emancipation in the District of Columbia, April 16, 1873 266

EQUAL RIGHTS OF COLORED FELLOW-CITIZENS IN NORMAL SCHOOLS. Letter read at a Public Meeting in Washington, June 22, 1873 268

THE PRESIDENT OF HAYTI AND MR. SUMNER. Letter in Reply to one from the Former, July 4, 1873 270

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION. Letter to Henry Richard, M.P., on the Vote in the House of Commons agreeing to his Motion for an Address to the Queen, praying Communication with Foreign Powers with a View to a General and Permanent System of International Arbitration, July 10, 1873 273

A COMMON-SCHOOL SYSTEM IRRESPECTIVE OF COLOR. Letter to the Colored Citizens of Washington, July 29, 1873 275

BOSTON: ITS PROPER BOUNDARIES. Letter to Hon. G. W. Warren, of Charlestown, on the Annexion to Boston of the Suburban Towns, October 4, 1873 279

YELLOW FEVER AT MEMPHIS AND SHREVEPORT: AID FOR THE SUFFERERS. Remarks before the Board of Trade at Boston, October 24, 1873 281

THE CASE OF THE VIRGINIUS. Letter to the Cuban Mass Meeting in New York, November 15, 1873 284

THE SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL-RIGHTS BILL AGAIN: IMMEDIATE ACTION URGED. Remarks in the Senate, December 2, 1873 286

OUR PILGRIM FOREFATHERS. Speech at the Dinner of the New England Society in New York, December 22, 1873 291

SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL-RIGHTS BILL: THE LAST APPEAL. Remarks in the Senate, January 27, 1874 301

INDEX 317

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: ITS PROPER NUMBER.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON THE BILL FOR THE APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES AMONG THE STATES, JANUARY 29, 1872.

MR. PRESIDENT,--Before the vote is taken I desire to make one remark. I was struck with the suggestion of the Senator from Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN], the other day, with regard to the proposition which comes from the House. He reminded us that it was a House proposition, and that it was natural that the House should be allowed to regulate itself. I think there is much in that worthy of consideration. I doubt if the Senate would receive with much favor any proposition from the House especially applicable to us. I think we should be disposed to repel it. I think we should say that our experience should enable us to judge that question better than the experience of the House. And now I ask whether the experience of the House does not enable them to judge of the question of numbers better than we can judge of it? On general grounds I confess I should myself prefer a smaller House; personally I incline that way; but I am not willing on that point to set myself against the House.

Then, Sir, I cannot be insensible to the experience of other countries. I do not know whether Senators have troubled themselves on that head; but if they have not, I think it will not be uninteresting to them to have their attention called to the numbers of the great legislative bodies of the world at this moment. For instance, beginning with England, there is the upper House, the Chamber of Peers, composed of four hundred and sixty-six members; then the lower House, the House of Commons, with six hundred and fifty-eight members. We know that, practically, these members attend only in comparatively small numbers; that it is only on great questions that either House is full.

MR. TRUMBULL. Did the House of Lords ever have anything like that number present?

MR. SUMNER. It has had several hundred. There are four hundred and sixty-six entitled to seats in the House of Lords.

Pass over to France. The National Assembly, sitting at Versailles at this moment, elected February 8 and July 2, 1871, consists of seven hundred and thirty-eight members.

Pass on to Prussia. The upper Chamber of the Parliament of Prussia has two hundred and sixty-seven members; the lower Chamber has four hundred and thirty-two. Now we all know that Prussia is a country where no rule of administration or of constitution is adopted lightly, and everything is considered, if I may so express myself, in the light of science.

Pass to Austria, under the recent organization. You are aware that there are two different Parliaments now in Austria,--one for what is called the cis-Leithan territories, territories this side of the river Leitha; the other, trans-Leithan, or those on the other side, being the Hungarian territory. Beginning with those on this side of the river, the upper House consists of one hundred and seventy-five members: observe, it is more than twice as large as our Senate. The lower House consists of two hundred and three members: smaller than our House of Representatives. But now pass to the other side of the river and look at the Hungarian Parliament. There the upper House contains two hundred and sixty-six members, and the lower House, or Chamber of Deputies, as it is called, four hundred and thirty-eight.

Pass to Italy, a country organized under a new constitution in the light of European and American experience, liberal, and with a disposition to found its institutions on the basis of science. The Senate of Italy contains two hundred and seventy members, the Chamber of Deputies five hundred and eight.

Then pass to Spain. There the upper branch of the Cortes contains one hundred and ninety-six members, and the lower branch four hundred and sixteen.

So that you will find in all these countries,--Great Britain, France, Prussia, Austria in its two Parliaments, Italy, and Spain,--that the number adopted for the lower House is much larger than any now proposed for our House of Representatives.

I call attention to this fact because it illustrates by the experience of other nations what may be considered as a rule on this subject. At any rate, it shows that other nations are not deterred by anything in political experience from having a House with these large numbers; and this perhaps is of more value because European writers, political philosophers for successive generations, have warred against large bodies. We have the famous saying of the Cardinal de Retz, that any body of men above a hundred is a mob; and that saying, coming from so consummate a statesman and wit, has passed into a proverb, doubtless affecting the judgment of many minds; and yet in the face of this testimony, and with the writings of political philosophers all inclining against numbers, we find that the actual practical experience of Europe has gone the other way. The popular branch in all these considerable countries is much more numerous than it is now proposed to make our House of Representatives.

REFORM AND PURITY IN GOVERNMENT: NEUTRAL DUTIES. SALE OF ARMS TO BELLIGERENT FRANCE.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, FEBRUARY 28, 1872.

February 12, 1872, Mr. Sumner introduced a resolution, with a preamble setting forth its grounds, providing,--

“That a select committee of seven be appointed to investigate all sales of ordnance stores made by the Government of the United States during the war between France and Germany; to ascertain the persons to whom such sales were made, the circumstances under which they were made, and the real parties in interest, and the sums respectively paid and received by the real parties; and that the committee have power to send for persons and papers; and that the investigation be conducted in public.”

And on his motion it was ordered to lie on the table and be printed.

On the 14th the resolution was taken up for consideration, when Mr. Sumner entered into an exposition of the matter referred to in the preamble, and of the law applicable thereto, remarking in conclusion:--

“For the first time has the United States, within my knowledge, fallen under suspicion of violating the requirement of neutrality on this subject. Such seems to be our present position. We are under suspicion. What I propose is a searching inquiry, according to the magnitude of the interests involved, to ascertain if this is without just grounds.”

Thereupon ensued a long and acrimonious debate,--toward the close of which, Mr. Sumner, on the 28th, in review of the case, spoke as follows:--

MR PRESIDENT,--Besides the unaccustomed interest which this debate excites, I cannot fail to note that it has wandered far beyond any purpose of mine, and into fields where I have no desire to follow. In a few plain remarks I shall try to bring it back to the real issue, which I hope to present without passion or prejudice. I declare only the rule of my life, when I say that nothing shall fall from me to-day which is not prompted by the love of truth and the desire for justice; but you will pardon me, if I remember that there is something on this planet higher than the Senate or any Senator, higher than any public functionary, higher than any political party: it is the good name of the American people and the purity of Government, which must be saved from scandal. In this spirit and with this aspiration I shall speak to-day.

In considering this resolution we must not forget the peculiar demands of the present moment. An aroused community in the commercial metropolis of our country has unexpectedly succeeded in overthrowing a corrupt ring by which millions of money had been sacrificed. Tammany has been vanquished. Here good Democrats vied with Republicans. The country was thrilled by the triumph, and insisted that it should be extended. Then came manifestations against abuses of the civil service generally, and especially in that other Tammany, the New York custom-house. The call for investigation at last prevailed in this Chamber, and the newspapers have been burdened since with odious details. Everybody says there must be reform, so that the Government in all its branches shall be above suspicion. The cry for reform is everywhere,--from New York to New Orleans. Within a few days we hear of a great meeting, amounting to ten thousand, in the latter city, without distinction of party, calling for reform; and the demand is echoed from place to place. Reform is becoming a universal watchword.

In harmony with this cry is the appointment of a Civil-Service Commission, which has proposed mild measures looking to purity and independence in office-holders.

Amidst these transactions, occupying the attention of the country, certain facts are reported, tending to show abuses in the sale of arms at the Ordnance Office, exciting at least suspicion in that quarter; and this is aggravated by a seeming violation of neutral duties at a critical moment, when, on various grounds, the nation was bound to peculiar care. It appeared as if our neutral duties were sacrificed to money-making, if not to official jobbers. The injunction of Iago seemed to be obeyed: “Put money in thy purse.” These things were already known in Europe, especially through a notorious trial,[1] and then by a legislative inquiry, so as to become a public scandal. It was time that something should be done to remove the suspicion. This could be only by a searching investigation in such way as to satisfy all at home and abroad that there was no whitewashing.

In proportion to the magnitude of the question and the great interests involved, whether of money or neutral duty, was the corresponding responsibility on our part. Here was a case for action without delay.

Under these circumstances I brought forward the present motion. Here I acted in entire harmony with that movement, now so much applauded, which overthrew Tammany, and that other movement which has exposed the Custom-House. Its object was inquiry into the sale of arms. This was the objective point. But much of this debate has turned on points merely formal, if not entirely irrelevant.

More than once it has been asserted that I am introducing “politics”; and then we have been reminded of the Presidential election, which to certain Senators is a universal prompter. I asked for reform, and the Senator from Indiana [Mr. MORTON], seizing the party bugle, sounded “To arms!” But I am not tempted to follow him. I have nothing to say of the President or of the Presidential election. The Senator cannot make me depart from the rule I have laid down for myself. I introduce no “politics,” but only a question which has become urgent, affecting the civil service of the country.

Now, Sir, I have been from the beginning in favor of civil-service reform. I am the author of the first bill on that subject ever introduced into Congress, as long ago as the spring of 1864.[2] I am for a real reform that shall reach the highest as well as the lowest, and I know no better way to accomplish this beneficent result than by striving at all times for purity in the administration of Government. Therefore, when officials fall under suspicion, I should feel myself disloyal to the Government, if I did not insist on the most thorough inquiry. So I have voted in the past, so I must vote in the future. Call you this politics? Not in the ordinary sense of the term. It is only honesty and a just regard for the public weal.

Then it has been said that I am a French agent, and even a Prussian agent,--two in one. Sir, I am nothing but a Senator, whose attention was first called to this matter by a distinguished citizen not named in this debate. Since then I have obtained such information with regard to it as was open to me,--all going to develop a case for inquiry.

I should say nothing more in reply to this allegation but for the vindictive personal assault made upon a valued friend, the Marquis de Chambrun. The Senator from Missouri [Mr. SCHURZ] has already spoken for him; but I claim this privilege also. Besides his own merits, this gentleman is commended to Americans by his association with the two French names most cherished in our country, Lafayette and De Tocqueville. I have known him from the very day of his arrival in Washington early in the spring of 1865, and have seen him since, in unbroken friendship, almost daily. Shortly after his arrival I took him with me on a visit to Mr. Lincoln at the front, close upon the capture of Richmond. This stranger began his remarkable intimacy with American life by several days in the society of the President only one week before his death. He was by the side of the President in his last visit to a military hospital, and when he last shook hands with the soldiers; also when he made his last speech from the window of the Executive Mansion, the stranger was his guest, standing by his side. From that time down to this day of accusation his intimacies have extended beyond those of any other foreigner. His studies of our institutions have been minute and critical, being second only to those of his late friend De Tocqueville. Whether conversing on his own country or on ours, he is always at home.

If at any time the Marquis de Chambrun sustained official relations with the French Government, or was its agent, he never spoke of it to me; nor did I ever know it until the papers produced by the Senator from Iowa [Mr. HARLAN]. Our conversation was always that of friends, and on topics of general interest, not of business. Though ignorant of any official relations with his own Government, I could not fail to know his close relations with members of our Government, ending in his recent employment to present our case in French for the Geneva tribunal,--an honorable and confidential service, faithfully performed.

The Senator from Indiana knew of the arms question some five months before the meeting of Congress. I did not. It was after the session began, and just before the holidays, that I first knew of it. And here my informant was not a foreigner, but, as I have already said, a distinguished citizen. The French “spy,” as he is so happily called, though with me daily, never spoke of it; nor did I speak of it to him. By-and-by the Senator from Missouri mentioned it, and then, in my desire to know the evidence affecting persons here, if any such existed, I spoke to my French friend. This was only a few days before the resolution.

Such is the history of my relations with the accused. There is nothing to disguise, nothing that I should not do again. I know no rule of senatorial duty or of patriotism which can prevent me from obtaining information of any kind from any body, especially when the object is to pursue fraud and to unmask abuse. Is not a French gentleman a competent witness? Once the black could not testify against the white, and now in some places the testimony of a Chinese is rejected. But I tolerate no such exclusion. Let me welcome knowledge always, and from every quarter. “Hail, holy light!”--no matter from what star or what nation it may shine.

And this gentleman, fresh from a confidential service to our own Government, enjoying numerous intimacies with American citizens, associated with illustrious names in history and literature, and immediately connected with one of the highest functionaries of the present French Government, M. de Rémusat, Minister for Foreign Affairs, is insulted here as an “emissary” and a “spy”; nay, more, France is insulted,--for these terms are applied only to the secret agents of an enemy in time of war. But enough. To such madness of error and vindictive accusation is this defence carried!

Another charge is that I am making a case for Prussia against our own country. Oh, no! I am making a case for nobody. I simply try to relieve my country from an odious suspicion, and to advance the cause of good government. The Senator from Indiana supposes that this effort of mine, having such objects, may prejudice the Emperor of Germany against us in the arbitration of the San Juan question. The Senator does not pay a lofty compliment to that enlightened and victorious ruler. Nay, Sir, the very suggestion of the Senator is an insult to him, which he is too just to resent, but which cannot fail to excite a smile of derision. Surely the Senator was not in earnest.

The jest of the Senator, offered for argument, seems to forget that all these things are notorious in Europe, through the active press of Paris and London. Why, Sir, our own State Department furnishes official evidence that the alleged sale of arms to the French by our Government is known in Berlin itself, right under the eyes of the Emperor. Our Minister there, Mr. Bancroft, in his dispatch of January 7, 1871, furnishes the following testimony from the London “Times”:--

“During the Crimean War, arms and munitions of war had been freely exported from Prussia to Russia; and recently rifled cannon and ammunition have been furnished to the French in enormous quantities, _not only by private American traders, but by the War Department at Washington_.”[3]

These latter words are italicized in the official publication of our Government, and thus blazoned to the world. I do not adduce them to show that the War Department did sell arms to belligerent France, but that even in Berlin the imputation upon us was known and actually reported by our Minister. If the latter made any observations on this imputation I know not; for at this point in his dispatch are those convenient asterisks which are the substitute for inconvenient revelations.