REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON THE FINAL ADJOURNMENT, NOVEMBER 26, 1867.

Thursday, November 21st, Congress reassembled, pursuant to the

resolution adopted July 20th. According to existing law, the

regular session would commence on the first Monday of December.

November 26th, Mr. Grimes, of Iowa, moved the adjournment

of the two Houses on Monday, December 2d, at half past

eleven o’clock, A. M. Mr. Sumner suggested “twelve o’clock,”

remarking,--

I question whether we should leave even the break of half an hour

between the two sessions. The point is just this: Will you leave to

the President one half-hour within which he may take advantage of the

absence of Congress, and issue commissions which would perhaps run--I

do not decide the point now, but which, I say, might run to the last

day of the next session?--that may be midsummer or autumn. I take it

that an appointment during that interim of half an hour might possibly

be valid to the last day of the next session of Congress.

MR. EDMUNDS [of Vermont]. But the law takes no notice of parts

of a day.

MR. SUMNER. That is a technicality. Why open the question?

Mr. Grimes, following the suggestion, altered his motion to

“twelve o’clock.” A debate ensued, in which Mr. Sherman, of

Ohio, Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, and Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois,

took part. Mr. Sumner followed.

I hope that what we do will be for the welfare of the country, and with

no reference to mere rumors or reports. There I agree with my friend;

but then I do not agree with him, when he says, Give the President

another chance. We have been giving him chances, and we cannot act now

without taking into consideration his character and position, which

have become matters of history. I would speak with proper delicacy,

with proper reserve, but I must speak under the responsibility of

a Senator. A large portion of our country believe the President a

wicked man, of evil thoughts and unpatriotic purposes, in spirit and

conduct the successor of Jefferson Davis, through whom the Rebellion is

revived. Such are the sentiments of a large portion of our people.

MR. DIXON [of Connecticut]. I desire to ask the Senator if that

is the opinion of a majority of the American people, in his

judgment.

MR. SUMNER. It is unquestionably the opinion of a large portion of

the people of the United States; whether a majority or not the future

may disclose. I will not anticipate any such judgment. I speak now

with reference to what is before us. The question is, whether we shall

give him another opportunity. I say, No. And here I act on no floating

rumor, to which the Senator from Illinois refers; I act with reference

to the character of the chief magistrate, displayed in his public

conduct. It seems to me that it will be something like rashness, if the

Senate concede to him another occasion to practise on the country in

carrying out his policy, as we know he has practised in times past.

We must stop the way. We should not give him a day; we should not give

him five minutes,--I am ready to say that,--not five minutes, for the

chance of illegitimate power. I will not allow him to exercise it, and

then take my chance hereafter of applying the corrective.

And that brings me to the exact point as to whether the present session

should expire precisely when the coming session begins. I see no reason

why it should not. I see no reason why we should interpose the buffer

even of five minutes. Let one session come close upon the other, and

then we shall exclude every possibility of evil consequences. In

France, during the old monarchy, when the king died, the moment the

breath was out of his body the reign of his successor began, so that

the cry, “The king is dead,” was followed instantly by another cry,

“Long live the king!” Now I know not why, when this session expires,

we may not at the same time announce its expiration and announce a new

session.

The resolution was agreed to, and Congress adjourned

accordingly.

Charles Sumner: his complete works, volume 16 (of 20) · 第 11 / 80 题