Part 3

But the letter of Mr. Remington, already adduced,[20] carries this suspicion still further, by adding his positive testimony that he dealt with the Government. Before referring again to this testimony, it is important to consider the character of the witness; and here we have the authentication of the Secretary of War, who has recommended and indorsed him, in a formal paper to be used in France. Others may question the statements of Mr. Remington, but no person speaking for the Secretary will hesitate to accept them. If the testimony of the Secretary needed support, it would be found in the open declarations on this floor by the Senator from New York [Mr. CONKLING], and in the following letter, which the Senator dated from the Senate Chamber during the recess, when notoriously the Senate was not in session:--

“SENATE CHAMBER,

“WASHINGTON, D. C., November 17, 1871.

“MY DEAR SIR,--I learn with surprise that your personal and commercial situation and the good name of the house of Remington & Sons have been questioned. Having known your father and sons for many years, having lived within a stone-throw, so to say, of your house for a number of years, and being one of the Senators of your State, I cannot hesitate to give you my testimony relative to the accusations that have, as has been told me, been brought against you in France.

“As to what concerns personal situation, importance of affairs, success, solvency, wealth, and fidelity to the Government of the United States, your house has for a long time occupied a front rank, not only in the State of New York, but also in the Union.

“The allegation that you lack experience as a manufacturer of arms, or in anything that can, as a man of business, entitle you to respect, is, I can affirm in all sincerity, destitute of foundation, and must proceed from ignorance or malignity.

“Sincerely, your obedient servant,

“ROSCOE CONKLING.

“Mr. SAMUEL REMINGTON.”

Thus does the Senator from New York vouch for the “good name” of Mr. Remington.

Thus introduced, thus authenticated, and thus indorsed, Mr. Remington cannot be rejected as a witness, especially when he writes an official letter to the Chairman of the French Armament Commission at Tours. You already know something of that letter, dated at New York, December 13, 1870. My present object is to show how, while announcing his large purchases of batteries, arms, and cartridges, he speaks of dealing with Government always, and not even with any intermediate agent.

MR. CONKLING. Will the Senator allow me there one moment, as he has referred to me?

MR. SUMNER. Certainly.

MR. CONKLING. He is engaged at this point, if I understand him aright, in supporting Mr. Remington in his character; and as the document from which he made the translation of my letter also contains stronger fortification in aid of the Senator and of Mr. Remington, I beg to call attention to it. The Senator might refer not only to my letter, but to letters written by Governor Hoffman, ex-Governor Horatio Seymour, Edwin D. Morgan, late a member of this body, General John A. Dix, not unknown here, and other citizens of the State of New York, who certify, I believe in somewhat stronger terms than those I employed, to the probity and standing of Mr. Remington.

MR. SUMNER. I am obliged to the Senator for the additional testimony that he bears. It only fortifies the authority of Mr. Remington, which was my object. I took the liberty of introducing the letter of the Senator, because he is among us, and had vouched for Mr. Remington personally. I gladly welcome the additional evidence which the Senator introduces. It is entirely in harmony with the case that I am presenting. I wish to show how Mr. Remington was regarded by the Senator, by the Secretary of War, and by other distinguished citizens,--so that, when he writes an official letter to the Chairman of the Arms Committee of Tours, he cannot be rejected as a witness.

The letter is long, and early in it the writer alludes to a credit from France and certain instructions with regard to it, saying:--

“This we could not do, as a considerable portion had been _already paid out to the Government_.”

Then coming to the purchase of breech-loading Springfield muskets, he writes:--

“_The Government_ has never made but about seventy-five thousand, all told; and forty thousand is the greatest number _they think it prudent to spare_.”

In order to increase the number he proposed an exchange of his own, and here he says:--

“This question of an exchange, _with the very friendly feeling I find existing to aid France_, I hope to be able to procure more.”

Where was “the very friendly feeling existing to aid France”? Not among merchants, agents, or brokers. This would hardly justify the important declaration with regard to a feeling which was so efficacious.

Then comes the question of cartridges; and here the dealings with the Government become still more manifest:--

“Cartridges for these forty thousand will in a great measure require to be made, as _the Government_ have but about three millions on hand. But _the Government_ has consented to allow the requisite number, four hundred for each gun, to be made, and the cartridge-works have had orders, given yesterday, to increase production to the full capacity of works.”

Observe here, if you please, the part performed by the Government,--not only its consent to the manufacture, but the promptitude of this consent. This was not easily accomplished, as the well-indorsed witness testifies:--

“This question of making the cartridges _at the Government works_ was a difficult one to get over. But it is done.”

Naturally difficult; but the agent of France overcame all obstacles. Then as to price:--

“The price _the Government_ will charge for the guns and cartridges will be ----, or as near that as possible.”

Always “the Government”! Then comes another glimpse:--

“The forty thousand guns cannot all be shipped immediately, as they are distributed _in the various arsenals throughout the country_.”

That is, the Government arsenals.

Then appears one of our officials on the scene:--

“_The Chief of Ordnance_ thinks it may take twenty to thirty days before all could be brought in.”

Then again the witness reports:--

“_The Chief of Ordnance_ estimates the cost of the arms, including boxing and expense of freight to bring them to New York, at $20.60 currency.”

Then as to the harness:--

“_The Government_ have not full complete sets to the extent of twenty-five hundred after selling the number required for the fifty batteries.”

Always “the Government”!

Then, after mentioning that some parts of the harness are wanting, he says:--

“I have made arrangements to have this deficiency made good by either _the Government_ or by outside persons.”

But the Government does all it can:--

“In the mean time _the Government_ have ordered the harness to be sent here immediately.”

Then at the close the witness says:--

“I forgot to say _the Government_ have no Spencer rifles, having never had but a small number, and all of those you have bought.”

And he adds--

that “they have from three to four thousand transformed Springfields,” which he “may think best to take _after examination_,”--

showing again his intimate dealings with the Government.

Such is the testimony of Mr. Remington, the acknowledged agent of France. It is impossible to read these repeated allusions to “the Government” and “the Chief of Ordnance” without feeling that the witness was dealing directly in this quarter. If there was any middleman, he was of straw only; but a man-of-straw is nobody. If Mr. Remington’s character were not vouched so completely, if he did not appear on authentic testimony so entirely above any misrepresentation, if he were not elevated to be the model arms-dealer, this letter, with its numerous averments of relations with the Government, would be of less significance. But how can these be denied or explained without impeaching this witness?

But Mr. Remington is not without important support in his allegations. His French correspondent, M. Le Cesne, Chairman of the Armament Committee, has testified in open court that the French dealt directly with the Government. He may have been mistaken; but his testimony shows what he understood to be the case. The Senator from Missouri [Mr. SCHURZ] has already called attention to this testimony, which he cited from a journal enjoying great circulation on the European continent, “L’Indépendance Belge.” The Senator from Vermont, [Mr. EDMUNDS,] not recognizing the character of this important journal, distrusted the report. But this testimony does not depend upon that journal alone. I have it in another journal, “Le Courrier des États-Unis,” of October 27, 1871, evidently copied from a Parisian journal, probably one of the law journals, where it is given according to the formal report of a trial, with question and answer:--

“THE PRESIDING JUDGE. Did not this indemnity of twenty-five cents represent certain material expenses, certain disbursements, incidental expenses?

“M. LE CESNE. We could not admit these expenses; _for we had an agreement with the American Federal Government, which had engaged to deliver free on board all the arms on account of France_.”

Now I make no comment on this testimony except to remark that it is in entire harmony with the letter of Mr. Remington, and that beyond all doubt it was given in open court under oath, and duly reported in the trial, so as to become known generally in Europe. The position of M. Le Cesne gave it authority; for, beside his recent experience as Chairman of the Arms Committee, he is known as a former representative in the Assembly from the large town of Havre, and also a resident for twenty years in the United States. In confirmation of the value attached to this testimony, I mention that my attention was first directed to it by Hon. Gustavus Koerner, of Illinois, Minister of the United States at Madrid, under President Lincoln.

To this cumulative testimony I add that already supplied by our Minister at Berlin, under date of January 7, 1871, and published by the Department of State, where it is distinctly said that “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_.” This I have already adduced under another head.[21] It is mentioned now to show how the public knowledge of Europe was in harmony with the other evidence.

There is another piece of testimony, which serves to quicken suspicion. It is already admitted by the Secretary of War, that, after refusing Mr. Remington because he was an agent of France, bids were accepted from Thomas Richardson, who was in point of fact an attorney-at-law at Ilion, and agent and attorney of Mr. Remington. But the course of Mr. Remington, and his relations with this country attorney, are not without official illustration. Since this debate began I have received a copy of a law journal of Paris, “Le Droit, Journal des Tribunaux,” of January 18, 1872, containing the most recent judicial proceedings against the French Consul-General at New York. Here I find an official report from the acting French Consul there, addressed to the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, under date of August 25, 1871, where a fact is described which was authenticated at the Consulate, being an affidavit or deposition before a notary by a clerk of Mr. Remington, on which the report remarks:--

“This declaration establishing that this manufacturer caused the books of his house to be recopied three times, and in doing so altered the original form.”

The Report adds:--

“It is in this document that mention is made of the character, I might say criminal, which the name of Richardson appears to have assumed in the affairs of Mr. Remington.”

After remarking that the witness who has thus testified has exposed himself to the penalties of perjury, being several years of imprisonment, the Report proceeds:--

“You see from this that the operations of Mr. Remington give only too much of a glimpse of the most audacious frauds.”

Here is testimony tending at least to stimulate inquiry: Mr. Remington’s books altered three times, and the name of Richardson playing a criminal part. I quote this from an official document, and leave it.

* * * * *

Here, then, are six different sources of testimony, all prompting inquiry: first, the resolution of a committee of the French Assembly, showing suspicion of American officials; secondly, the cable dispatch of Squire, son-in-law and agent of Mr. Remington, declaring that “we have the strongest influences working for us, which will use all their efforts to succeed”; thirdly, the letter of Mr. Remington, reporting, in various forms and repetitions, that he is dealing with the American Government; fourthly, the testimony of M. Le Cesne, the Chairman of the French Armament Committee, made in open court and under oath, that the French “had an agreement with the American Federal Government, which had engaged to deliver free on board all the arms on account of France”; fifthly, the positive declaration of the London “Times” in the face of Europe, and reported by our Minister at Berlin, that rifled cannon and ammunition had been furnished to the French in enormous quantities by the War Department at Washington; and, sixthly, the testimony of a clerk of Mr. Remington, authenticated by the French Consul-General at New York, that Mr. Remington had altered his books three times, and also speaking of the criminal character of Richardson in the affairs of Mr. Remington. On this cumulative and concurring testimony from six different sources is it not plain that there must be inquiry? The Senate cannot afford to close its eyes. The resolution of the committee of the French Assembly alone would be enough; but reinforced as it is from so many different quarters, the case is irresistible. Not to inquire is to set at defiance all rules of decency and common-sense.

* * * * *

To these successive reasons I add the evidence, which has been much discussed, showing a violation of the statute authorizing the sale of “the old cannon, arms, and other ordnance stores, now in possession of the War Department, which are damaged or otherwise unsuitable for the United States military service or for the militia of the United States,”[22]--inasmuch as stores were sold which were not “damaged” or “otherwise unsuitable.” I think no person can have heard the debate without admitting that here at least is something for careful investigation. The Senator from Missouri has already exposed this apparent dereliction of duty, which in its excess ended in actually disarming the country, so as to impair its defensive capacity. One of the crimes of the Cabinet of Mr. Buchanan on the eve of the Rebellion was that the North had been disarmed. It is important to consider whether, in the strange greed for money or in the misfeasance of subordinates, something similar was not done when good arms were sold to France. The Chief of Ordnance, in his last Annual Report, which will be found in the Report of the Secretary of War, makes the following statement:--

“Now there are less than ten thousand breech-loading muskets in the arsenals for issue. This number of muskets is not half sufficient to supply the States with the muskets they are now entitled to receive under their apportionment of the permanent appropriation for arming and equipping the militia.”

Why, then, were breech-loading muskets exchanged for French gold? The Chief of Ordnance then proceeds:--

“This Department should, as soon as possible, be placed in a condition to fill all proper requisitions by the States upon it, and should also have on hand in store a large number of breech-loading muskets and carbines to meet any emergency that may arise.”

But these very breech-loading muskets have gone to France. The Chief of Ordnance adds:--

“Ten years ago the country felt that not less than a million of muskets should be kept in store in the arsenals.”[23]

Why was not this remembered, when the arsenals were stripped to supply France?

This important testimony speaks for itself. It is not sufficient to recount against it the arms actually in the national arsenals. The Chief of Ordnance answers the allegation by his own statements. He regrets the small number of breech-loading muskets on hand, and refers as an example to the standard ten years ago, when it was felt that a million of muskets should be kept in store. It is not I who say this; it is the Chief of Ordnance.

* * * * *

But these several considerations, while making inquiry imperative, do not touch the money question involved. If in the asserted dealings with a belligerent power, in violation of our neutral duties, there is reason to believe corrupt practices of any kind, if there are large sums of money that seem to be unaccounted for, then is there additional ground for inquiry. Two questions are presented: first, as to the violation of neutral duties; and, secondly, as to misfeasance of subordinates involving money. In both cases the question, I repeat, is of inquiry.

I do not dwell now on the sums lost by France in this business. They are supposed to count by the million; but here I make no allegation. I allude only to what appears elsewhere.

Unquestionably there are enormous discrepancies between the sums paid by France for arms actually identified as coming from our arsenals and the sums received by our Ordnance Bureau. In different reports these discrepancies assume different forms. Not to repeat what has been said on other occasions, I introduce the report of the acting French Consul at New York, dated August 25, 1871, where, after showing that France received only 368,000 muskets and 53,000,000 cartridges, while the accounts with Mr. Remington enumerate a sum-total of 425,000 arms and 54,000,000 cartridges, it is said:--

“Whence comes this difference of 57,000 between the arms said to be sent from here and those which were received in France, if in fact the report of M. Riant signifies that they have only received a total of 368,000? How explain that there were 425,000 put on the bills of lading, and that the price of these was paid in New York?”

Now this discrepancy may be traced exclusively to French agents, so that our subordinates shall not in any way be involved; but when we consider all the circumstances of this transaction, it affords grounds of inquiry.

But there is another witness on this head, not before mentioned in this debate. I have here an extract from the official report of M. de Bellonet, the French _Chargé d’Affaires_ at Washington, made to his Government on this very question of losses down to a certain period. His language is explicit: “The _dry loss_ to the Treasury of France must have been about $1,500,000, or seven million francs.” This, be it remembered, is only a partial report down to a certain period. Now there is nothing in this report to charge this “dry loss” upon our officials. It may be that it was all absorbed by the intermediate agents. But taken in connection with the telegram of Squire and the abundant letter of Mr. Remington, it leaves a suspicion at least adverse to our officials.

Sir, let me be understood. I do not believe that any inquiry by any committee can give back to France any of the enormous sums she has lost. They have already gone beyond recall into the portentous mass of her terrible sacrifices destined to be an indefinite mortgage on that interesting country. Not for the sake of France or of any French claimant do I propose inquiry, but for our sake, for the sake of our own country. We read of that vast Serbonian bog “where armies whole have sunk.” It is important to know if there is any such bog anywhere about our Ordnance Office, where millions whole have sunk.

Investigation is the order of the day. Already in France, amid all the anxieties of her distracted condition, these purchases of arms have occupied much attention. As far back as last April, the “Soir,” a journal at Versailles, where the Convention was sitting, called for parliamentary inquiry. Its language was strong:--

“A parliamentary inquiry made in full day can alone establish either the culpability of some or the perfect honorableness of others.”

And the same French organ added:--

“The Chamber, in consigning this matter to its pigeonholes, refused satisfaction to an awakened public morality.”

There is, then, in France an awakened public morality, as we hope there is also in the United States, which demands investigation where there is suspicion of corrupt practices. The French Chamber has instituted inquiry.

* * * * *

Mr. President, as a Republic, we are bound to the most strenuous care, so that our example may not in any way suffer. If we fail, then does Republican Government everywhere feel the shock. For the sake of others as well as of ourselves must we guard our conduct. How often do I insist that we cannot at any moment, or in any transaction, forget these great responsibilities! As no man “liveth to himself,” so no nation “liveth” to itself; especially is this the condition of the Great Republic. By the very name it bears, and by its lofty dedication to the rights of human nature, is it vowed to all those things which contribute most to civilization, keeping its example always above suspicion. That great political philosopher, Montesquieu, announces that the animating sentiment of Monarchy is “Honor,” but the animating sentiment of a Republic is “Virtue.”[24] I would gladly accept this flattering distinction. Therefore, in the name of that Virtue which should inspire our Government and keep it forever above all suspicion, do I move this inquiry.

On this whole matter the Senate will act as it thinks best, ordering that investigation which the case requires. For myself I have but one desire, which is, that this effort, begun in the discharge of a patriotic duty, may redound to the good of our country, and especially to the purity of the public service.

APPENDIX.

(A.) Page 15.

AUTHORITIES REFERRED TO IN SPEECH.

Wheaton, our great authority, in Lawrence’s edition, page 727, quotes Vattel as laying down the rule of neutrality:--

“To give no assistance where there is no previous stipulation to give it; nor voluntarily to furnish troops, arms, ammunition, or anything of direct use in war.”

Vattel, as quoted, then says:--

“I do not say, _To give assistance equally_, but, _To give no assistance_; for it would be absurd that a State should assist at the same time two enemies.”--_Le Droit des Gens_, Liv. III. ch. vii. § 104.

Another home authority, the late General Halleck, in his work on International Law, after speaking of merchants engaged in selling ships and munitions of war to a belligerent, says:--

“The act is wrong in itself, and the penalty results from his violation of moral duty as well as of law. The duties imposed upon the citizens and subjects flow from exactly the same principle as those which attach to the government of neutral States.”

He then says, quoting another:--

“By these acts he makes himself personally a party to a war in which, as a neutral, he had no right to engage, and his property is justly treated as that of an enemy.”--_International Law_, p. 631.

Our other home authority, Professor Woolsey, in his work on International Law, section 162, says:--