Part 5

“It became the established practice for the member upon whose motion a committee had been ordered, to move the names of the members to compose it,--being, of course, of his own selection: his own name being among them, and perhaps the first named on the list. If he felt any delicacy in moving his own name, the motion might be made by some friend: as on the occasion of the appointment of the committee to prepare articles of impeachment against Lord Melville, which had been ordered on the motion of Mr. Whitbread, that gentleman was first appointed one of the committee on the motion of Lord Temple, and then on the motion of Mr. Whitbread the other members of the committee (Lord Temple being one) were appointed.”[37]

As this was a case of investigation, it is a precedent for us now. But our Committee was constituted in a very different manner. Mr. Cushing vindicates the practice of allowing the mover of a proposition himself to nominate the committee for the consideration of the House, saying:--

“That the House, by adopting the resolution for the committee, has signified its willingness that the subject should be so considered or investigated; that the member nominating the committee must be supposed to feel as strong an interest in the proper consideration of the subject as any one, and also to possess or to be willing to obtain the knowledge necessary to enable him to decide upon the qualifications of the members he selects.”[38]

In this vindication the careful and elaborate author shows how completely the early rule is recognized. The same learned authority, while stating the English and American Parliamentary Law, shows how the examination is conducted:--

“When an inquiry is instituted and an examination of witnesses undertaken by the House in its inquisitorial capacity, it is customary for the member on whose motion or suggestion the inquiry has been engaged in, or for some of the members voting with him for the inquiry, to take the lead in the examination of the witnesses, … or, in other words, to examine the witnesses in chief.”[39]

Plainly, according to this usage, Mr. Schurz, and not Mr. Hamlin, should take the lead and examine the witnesses in chief.

The other parliamentary authority to which I refer is Hon. R. M. T. Hunter, former Speaker of the House of Representatives. In his valedictory speech, March 3, 1841, this gentleman, who brought thought and study to the discharge of his public duties, took occasion to explain the principles governing the formation of committees, and all must admit that he did it with a clearness and philosophy not surpassed in parliamentary history. According to him, those having the affirmative of a proposition should have the direction of the committee. Speaking generally, he says:--

“The party upon which it naturally devolves to propose a question ought to have the power, it would seem, to present its proposition in the shape for which it is willing to be responsible; and as the different parties hold the affirmative according to the nature of the question, so ought the constitution of the committees to be varied.”

Then, in language precisely applicable to the present case, the Speaker says:--

“In committees of investigation it is equally clear that the opposition, _who hold the affirmative_, should have the majority and the power.”[40]

This instructive statement is in admirable harmony with the rule, as declared in early times, that those “against the thing” cannot go on the committee,--and that a measure, like a child, is not put to a nurse that cares not for it. The old Parliamentarians were less philosophical than the American Speaker, but each meant the same thing. The prime object is opportunity and fair play for those bringing forward a proposition, or holding the affirmative. A committee _organized to sustain the negative_ is the very committee described as a nurse that cares not for the child, and therefore is a committee not tolerated by Parliamentary Law.

Thus from all quarters--beginning with the distant in time, embracing Jefferson, the father of American Parliamentary Law, Cushing, its most authoritative American expounder, and not forgetting an American Speaker--proceeds concurring testimony to the parliamentary rule requiring an inquiry to be placed in the hands of its friends; especially is it necessary that the chairman, who directs the inquiry and examines the witnesses, should be known as one of its friends.

Therefore I must be pardoned, if I renew my Protest against the competency of the present Committee. I protest against it as constituted in flagrant violation of Parliamentary Law; and I protest especially against the acting Chairman, who undertakes to direct this inquiry and to examine witnesses, as not coming within the conditions established by rule, by usage, and by reason. The record shows that he did not move the inquiry, nor did he coöperate with the mover, or take any part in sustaining him, while in open speech he showed himself “against the thing.” I object to the acting Chairman as to a judge or juror disqualified to sit in a court.

I make this second Protest with infinite reluctance. But the Committee leave me no alternative. In their invitation, in the nature of a summons, and now in their subpœna, they compel me to declare my objection to their competency. Seeing it as clearly as I do, and feeling it as strongly as I do, I cannot avoid expressing it. If I do so twice, it is because the Committee have laid me twice under this obligation. Beyond that sentiment of duty which is with me a rule of life, I am encouraged to this effort by the hope that, even if the present Committee cannot be corrected in conformity with Parliamentary Law, its incompetency is so clearly exposed that it will be powerless hereafter as a precedent. If obliged to witness the present dishonor of a time-honored rule, I would at least save this safeguard for the future.

In thus declaring my profound sense of the wrong that has been attempted, I do all in my power to maintain Parliamentary Law inviolate. I regret that I cannot do more.

With this explanation, and yielding to the command of the Committee, I offer myself for examination on matters proper for inquiry; but I do it under protest.

CHARLES SUMNER.

SENATE CHAMBER, 27th March, 1872.

Mr. Carpenter moved that the two Protests be returned to Mr. Sumner, as disrespectful to the Committee. On a subsequent day the motion was withdrawn.

BOOKS ON THE FREE LIST.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE ON MOVING AN AMENDMENT TO A TARIFF BILL, MARCH 27, 1872.

On the question of concurrence in an amendment made in Committee of the Whole relative to the free list, Mr. Sumner said:--

I move to amend that amendment by adding after the provision as to books, as arranged alphabetically in the free list,--

Books in the ancient and foreign languages.

I have letters very often from learned professors in different parts of the country, complaining of the cost of books that they are constrained to purchase in order to carry on their studies and to enable them to teach. This is the case with Greek professors, professors in all the languages, ancient and modern. It is also the case with men of science, who desire works in the Continental languages; they complain bitterly of the expense to which they are put.

Now, if I can have the attention of the Senate one moment, I will endeavor to show that these works cannot come in competition with any books here at home. Certainly they cannot with regard to any considerable interest. I think, if these could be put on the free list, an essential service would be done; the revenue would lose very little, and no considerable interest in our country would suffer. I hope, therefore, there can be no question but that the Senate will allow this to be adopted.

MR. MORRILL [of Vermont]. I trust this amendment will not be adopted. It is evidently an old acquaintance of the Senate. I think the Senator from Massachusetts has always moved it whenever he has had an opportunity.

To the argument advanced by Mr. Morrill in support of this objection,--namely, “that the school-books of America should be American in character, and printed and published by American publishers,”--Mr. Sumner replied:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--The argument of my friend is against English books, and not books in ancient or foreign languages. At any rate, the chief point of his argument was addressed to works in the English language. He called our attention, for instance, to Smith’s “Dictionary of the Bible,” an English work; and he knows well, that, as it is a recent work, it is not on our free list, and the amendment which I move does not touch it. My amendment concerns books in the ancient languages, and in foreign languages, that is, in the languages of modern Europe; and the single point of the Senator is school-books. Now I ask whether we should not do all we can to make the school-books as cheap as possible? Will the Senator put a protective duty on school-books?--make the child with “shining morning face” as he goes to school pay a duty? I would have the school-books as cheap as possible. But then how few are the school-books that would come in under this provision?

My amendment reaches the large amount of works concerning science and literature and jurisprudence in ancient and in foreign languages; and why should these be subjected to a duty? Why should those scholars, those enlightened professional men who import these books, be subjected to this additional expense? Sir, I honor the man, whether of scholarship, of science, or of a profession, who imports these works of learning. He is a benefactor to his country. Every such work becomes a fountain in the neighborhood: but I would not put a duty on that fountain; I would unseal it; I would open it, and let it flow as amply as possible.

MR. MORRILL [of Maine]. I should like to ask the Senator from Massachusetts whether there are any books in foreign languages that are not published in this country. Are not all the books in the ancient languages published in this country?

MR. SUMNER. I beg to call the Senator’s attention to the boundless annual literature of Germany, where the volumes are counted by the thousand,--to the extensive literature of France, where the volumes are counted by the thousand,--to the less ample literature of Spain and Italy, with numerous publications, all of which, if imported, pay a duty. Now I wish to encourage that importation.

MR. MORRILL. I understood the Senator’s argument to be in favor of ancient books.

MR. SUMNER. It is also, certainly.

MR. MORRILL. My inquiry is, whether those books are not all republished in this country.

MR. SUMNER. Not at all. For instance, take most of the considerable works of scholarship in German, annually produced, bearing on the classics; they are not republished in our country, but our professors import them at cost. Then take another class of works, on science, in the German language, in the French language,--I would say also in the Italian language, for there are some excellent contributions to science as well as to literature in the Italian language,--those, if imported, pay a duty; but they do not come into competition with anything printed here. Why, then, should they pay a duty? Why not encourage their importation? Why not help the man of science, or the learned professor, who aspires to enlarge his library in this way? I have said that I regard such a person as a benefactor. I wish to give him my thanks, and my help, if I can. The best help I can give him is to try to save him from this additional tax.

Mr. Sumner’s Amendment was rejected,--Yeas 12, Nays not counted.

THE NASBY LETTERS.

INTRODUCTION TO THE COLLECTION,[41] APRIL 1, 1872.

Beyond the interest in these letters as another instance of a peculiar literature,--illustrated by Major Jack Downing, Sam Slick, and the genius of Hosea Biglow,--they have an historic character from the part they performed in the war with Slavery, and in advancing Reconstruction. Appearing with a certain regularity and enjoying an extensive circulation, they became a constant and welcome ally. Unquestionably they were among the influences and agencies by which disloyalty in all its forms was exposed, and public opinion assured on the right side. It is impossible to measure their value. Against the devices of Slavery and its supporters, each letter was like a speech, or one of those songs which stir the people. Therefore they belong to the political history of this critical period.

Of publications during the war, none had such charm for Abraham Lincoln. He read every letter as it appeared, and kept them all within reach for refreshment. This strong liking illustrates his character, and will always awaken an interest in the letters. An incident in my own relations with him shows how easily he turned from care to humor.

I had occasion to see President Lincoln very late in the evening of March 17th, 1865. The interview was in the familiar room known as his office, and also used for cabinet meetings. I did not take leave of him until some time after midnight, and then the business was not entirely finished. As I rose, he said, “Come to me when I open shop in the morning; I will have the order written, and you shall see it.” “When do you open shop?” said I. “At nine o’clock,” he replied. At the hour named I was in the same room that I had so recently left. Very soon the President entered, stepping quickly with the promised order in his hands, which he at once read to me. It was to disapprove and annul the judgment and sentence of a court-martial in a case that had excited much feeling. While I was making an abstract of the order for communication by telegraph to the anxious parties, he broke into quotation from Nasby. Finding me less at home than himself with his favorite humorist, he said pleasantly, “I must initiate you,” and then repeated with enthusiasm the message he had sent to the author: “For the genius to write these things I would gladly give up my office.”

Rising from his seat, he opened a desk behind, and, taking from it a pamphlet collection of the letters already published, proceeded to read from it with infinite zest, while his melancholy features grew bright. It was a delight to see him surrender so completely to the fascination. Finding that I listened, he read for more than twenty minutes, and was still proceeding, when it occurred to me that there must be many at the door waiting to see him on graver matters. Taking advantage of a pause, I rose, and, thanking him for the lesson of the morning, went away. Some thirty persons, including Senators and Representatives, were in the antechamber as I passed out.

Though with the President much during the intervening time before his death, this was the last business I transacted with him. A few days later he left Washington for City Point, on the James River, where he was at the surrender of Richmond. April 6th I joined him there. April 9th the party returned to Washington. On the evening of April 14th the bullet of an assassin took his life.

In this simple story Abraham Lincoln introduces Nasby.

CHARLES SUMNER.

WASHINGTON, April 1st, 1872.

ADVICE TO THE COLORED PEOPLE.

LETTER TO THE NATIONAL CONVENTION OF COLORED PEOPLE AT NEW ORLEANS, APRIL 7, 1872.

WASHINGTON, April 7, 1872.

MY DEAR SIR,--In reply to your inquiry, I make haste to say, that, in my judgment, the Colored Convention should think more of principles than of men,--except so far as men stand for principles. Above all, let them insist on the rights of their own much-abused and insulted people.

It is absurd for anybody to say that he “accepts the situation,” and then deny the equal rights of the colored man. If the “situation” is accepted in good faith, it must be entirely,--including not merely the abolition of Slavery and the establishment of equal suffrage, but also all those other rights which are still denied or abridged. There must be complete equality before the law, so that in all institutions, agencies, or conveniences, created or regulated by law, there can be no discrimination on account of color, but a black man shall be treated as a white man.

In maintaining their rights, it will be proper for the Convention to invoke the Declaration of Independence, so that its principles and promises shall become a living reality, never to be questioned in any way, but recognized always as a guide of conduct and a governing rule in the interpretation of the National Constitution, being in the nature of a Bill of Rights preceding the Constitution.

It is not enough to “proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof.” Equality must be proclaimed also; and since both are promised by the great Declaration, which is a national act, and as from their nature they should be uniform throughout the country, both must be placed under the safeguard of national law. There can be but one liberty and one equality, the same in Boston and New Orleans, the same everywhere throughout the country.

The colored people are not ungenerous, and therefore will incline to any measures of good-will and reconciliation; but I trust no excess of benevolence will make them consent to any postponement of those equal rights which are still refused. The disabilities of colored people, loyal and long-suffering, should be removed before the disabilities of former Rebels; or at least the two removals should go hand in hand.

It only remains that I should say, “Stand firm!” The politicians will then know that you are in earnest, and will no longer be trifled with. Victory will follow soon, and the good cause be secure forever.

Meanwhile accept my best wishes for the Convention, and believe me, dear Professor,

Faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

TO PROFESSOR JOHN M. LANGSTON, WASHINGTON.

DIPLOMATIC AGENTS OF THE UNITED STATES NOT TO ACCEPT GIFTS FROM FOREIGN POWERS.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, MAY 2, 1872.

Mr. Cameron, having moved to take up a joint resolution reported by him from the Committee on Foreign Relations, “permitting certain diplomatic and consular officers of the United States in France to accept testimonials from the Emperor of Germany for their friendly services toward the subjects of the Emperor during the war between France and Germany,”--Mr. Sumner promptly protested:--

I must object to it with my whole soul. I consider it a most vicious proposition, utterly untenable. The Constitution of the United States says:--

“No person holding any office of profit or trust under them [the United States] shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign State.”

Not even from the German Empire. Congress has followed one rule from the beginning, I believe,--never to allow its diplomatic agents to receive anything from a foreign power. It has allowed its naval officers, who have rendered some humane service at sea to the subjects of a foreign power, to receive some reward or recognition, some honor, some compliment; but it has never allowed any person in its diplomatic service to receive any such reward, honor, or compliment. I think the Senate will see that this rule proceeds on a ground from which we cannot depart. It is, that our representatives abroad must be kept always above all suspicion of acting under foreign influence, or the temptation of foreign reward. Nor should we, Sir, be gratified, I think, to see these representatives abroad wearing at their button-holes the insignia of any foreign power.

I hope, Sir, the Senate will not take up this matter again. It ought to be allowed to drop out of sight.

The matter was dropped.

PRESERVATION OF THE PARK AT WASHINGTON.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, MAY 15, 1872.

The Senate having under consideration a bill from the House confirming a grant by the City Council of Washington of a site for a railway dépôt in the public park, Mr. Sumner said:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--To my mind this bill is injudicious; and in saying this I give an opinion reached after the most careful consideration of it in the Committee. I think it ought not to be adopted by the Senate. I say this with reluctance, for I sympathize keenly with every improvement and with every facility afforded to this growing and beautiful metropolis; and may I say, also, I feel a personal sympathy with the distinguished citizen of Pennsylvania particularly interested in this measure? And yet, approaching its consideration with those biases in its favor, I am bound to conclude against it.

Sir, I do not think that this privilege ought to be granted, and my reason is precise and specific. It proposes to take a considerable section of land, which, if you look on the map, you will see properly belongs to the Park of Washington. I am unwilling, at this early period in the history of this metropolis, to begin by cutting out a slice from this inclosure set apart for the future. If you do it now, where are you to stop? Will you not be called to cut out another slice next year, or in five years,--and may not the Park be reduced from that form and those proportions it promises to enjoy? This metropolis is now at its beginning, and yet doubling in a decade. During the last ten years its population has multiplied twofold; and in the coming ten years there is every reason to believe that the development will be as large, if not larger. Of course with the increase of population is the demand for a park, especially in the central situation which that enjoys. I use the language of another, when I say that parks are the lungs of a great city; but where will be the lungs of this metropolis, if you begin now to reduce the Park? Rather should we sacredly keep it all intact, so that hereafter, when you and I, Sir, have passed away, and this metropolis has grown to a grandeur and beauty which imagination cannot now conceive, that Park may remain in its entirety, a blessing to the people, for which they themselves in turn will bless us.

Sir, I was born in a city which has the enjoyment of such a blessing. There is in Boston what is known as The Common, set apart in the very earliest days of the old town, when it was in fact what the name implies,--a common for the pasturage of cattle; but, though often assailed, it has been preserved untouched. Railroad corporations and other companies have tried in vain to obtain a corner from it. The jealous city fathers have saved that beautiful piece of earth, till now it is the first treasure of Boston,--unless we except her common schools, where all are equal before the law. I have often thought what would have ensued if some time ago, yielding to corporation pressure in its various forms, the city had consented to sacrifice that beautiful inclosure. There it is, the very apple of the eye to Boston; and nobody now fears that it will be diminished by a foot.

And should not Washington have a similar possession? Are you willing, Sir, now at this early moment of her history, when she is just beginning to grow, or rather when her growth is just beginning to be apparent, to despoil her of this unquestionable attraction, where the useful and the beautiful commingle? I think, Sir, you will act improvidently, if you do so. I think you will act against the best interests of the city, whether you look at health, beauty, or enjoyment; for a park ministers to all these.