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.
In the same spirit with the last triviality, but in the anxiety to
clutch at something, it is said that the Alabama Claims are endangered
by this inquiry. Very well, Sir. On this point I am clear. If these
historic claims, so interesting to the American people, are to be
pressed at the cost of purity in our own Government, they are not worth
the terrible price. Better give them up at once. Let them all go, every
dollar. “First pure, then peaceable”;[4] above all things purity. Sir,
I have from the beginning insisted that England should be held to just
account for her violation of international duty toward us. Is that
any reason why I should not also insist upon inquiry into the conduct
of officials at home, to the end that the Government may be saved
from reproach? Surely we shall be stronger, infinitely stronger, in
demanding our own rights, if we show a determination to allow no wrong
among ourselves. Our example must not be quoted against us at any time.
Especially must it not be allowed to harden into precedent. But this
can be prevented only by prompt correction, so that it shall be without
authority. Therefore, because I would have my country irresistible in
its demands, do I insist that it shall place itself above all suspicion.
The objection of Senators is too much like the old heathen cry, “Our
country, right or wrong.” Unhappy words, which dethrone God and exalt
the Devil! I am for our country with the aspiration that it may be
always right; but I am for nothing wrong. When I hear of wrong, I
insist at all hazards that it shall be made right, knowing that in this
way I best serve my country and every just cause.
This same objection assumes another form, equally groundless, when it
is said that I reflect upon our country and hurt its good name. Oh, no!
They reflect upon our country and hurt its good name who at the first
breath of suspicion fail to act. Our good name is not to be preserved
by covering up anything. Not in secrecy, but in daylight, must we live.
What sort of good name is that which has a cloud gathering about it?
Our duty is to dispel the cloud. Especially is this the duty of the
Senate. Here at least must be that honest independence which shall
insist at all times upon purity in the Government, no matter what
office-holders are exposed.
Again it is said that our good name cannot be compromised by these
suspicions. This is a mistake. Any suspicion of wrong is a compromise,
all the more serious when it concerns not only money, but the violation
of neutral obligations. And the actual fact is precisely according to
reason. Now while we debate, the national character is compromised at
Paris, at London, at Berlin, at Geneva, where all these things are
known as much as in this Chamber. But your indifference, especially
after this debate, will not tend to elevate the national character
either at home or abroad.
Such are some of the objections to which I reply. They are words only,
as Hamlet says, “Words, words, words.” From words let us pass to things.
* * * * *
Mr. President, I come now to the simple question before the Senate,
which I presented originally, whether there is not sufficient reason
for inquiry into the sale of arms during the French and German War. I
state the question thus broadly. The inquiry is into the sale of arms;
and this opens two questions,--first, of international duty; and,
secondly, of misfeasance in our officials, the latter involving what
may be compendiously called the money question.
My object is simply to show grounds for inquiry; and I naturally begin
with the rule of international duty.
In the discharge of neutral obligations a nation is bound to _good
faith_. This is the supreme rule, to which all else is subordinate.
This is the starting-point of all that is done. Without good faith
neutral obligations must fail. In proportion to the character of this
requirement must be the completeness of its observance. There can be
no evasion, not a jot. Any evasion is a breach, without the bravery
of open violation. But evasion may be sometimes by closing the eyes to
existing facts, or even by acting without sufficient inquiry. These
things are so plain and entirely reasonable as to be self-evident.
Now nothing can be more clear than that no neutral nation is permitted
to furnish arms and war material to a belligerent power. Such is a
simple statement of the law. I do not cite authorities, as I did it
amply on a former occasion.[5]
But there is an excellent author whom I would add to the list as worthy
of consideration, especially at this moment, in view of the loose
pretensions put forth in the debate. I refer to Mr. Manning, who, in
his Commentaries, thus teaches neutral duty:--
“It is no interference with the right of a third party to say that
he shall not carry to my enemy instruments with which I am to be
attacked. Such commerce is, on the other hand, a deviation from
neutrality,--or rather would be so, _if it were the act of a State_
and not of individuals.”[6]
The distinction is obvious between what can be done by the individual
and what can be done by the State. The individual may play the merchant
and take the risk of capture; but the State cannot play the merchant
in dealing with a belligerent. Of course, if the foreign power is at
peace, there is no question; but when the power has become belligerent,
then it is excluded from the market. So far as that power is concerned,
all sales must be suspended. The interdict is peremptory and absolute.
In such a case there can be no sale knowingly without mixing in the
war,--precisely as France mixed in the war of our Revolution in those
muskets sent by the witty Beaumarchais, which England resented by open
war.
And this undoubted principle of International Law was recognized by
the Secretary of War, when he directed the Chief of Ordnance not to
entertain any bids from E. Remington & Sons, who had stated that they
were agents of the French Government. In giving these orders he only
followed the rule of duty on which the country can stand without
question or reproach; but it remains to be seen whether persons under
him did not content themselves with obeying the order in letter only,
breaking it in spirit. I assume that the order was given in good faith.
Was it obeyed in good faith? Here we start with the admitted postulate
that it was wrong to sell arms to France.
But if this cannot be done directly, it is idle to say that it can be
done indirectly without a violation of good faith. If it cannot be done
openly, it cannot be done privily. If it cannot be done above-board, it
cannot be done clandestinely. It is idle to reject the bid of the open
agent of a belligerent power and then at once accept the bid of another
who may be a mere man-of-straw, unless after careful inquiry into his
real character.
Nothing can be clearer than the duty of the proper officers to consider
all bids in the sunlight of the conspicuous events then passing. A
terrible war was convulsing the Old World. Two mighty nations were in
conflict, one of which was already prostrate _and disarmed_. Meanwhile
came bids for arms and war material on a gigantic scale, on a scale
absolutely unprecedented. Plainly these powerful batteries, these
muskets by the hundred thousand, and these cartridges by the million
were for the disarmed belligerent and nobody else. It was impossible
not to see it. It is insulting to common-sense to imagine it otherwise.
Who else could need arms and war material to the amount of four million
dollars at once? Now it appears by the dispatches of the French
Consul-General at New York, which I find in an official document, that
on the 22d October, 1870, he telegraphed to the Armament Commission at
Tours:--
“The prices of adjudication have been 100,000 muskets at $9.30;
40,000 at $12.30; 100,000 at $12.25; 50,000,000 cartridges at
$16.30 the thousand: altogether, with the commission to Remington
and the incidental expenses, more than four million dollars.”
Such gigantic purchases, made at one time, or in the space of a few
days, could have but one destination. It is weakness to imagine
otherwise. Obviously, plainly, unquestionably, they were for the
disarmed belligerent. The telegraph each morning proclaimed the
constant fearful struggle, and we all became daily spectators. In the
terrible blaze, filling the heavens with lurid flame, it was impossible
not to see the exact condition of the two belligerents,--Germany always
victorious, France still rallying for the desperate battle. But the
officials of the Ordnance Bureau saw this as plainly as the people.
Therefore were they warned, so that every applicant for arms and war
material on a large scale was open to just suspicion. These officials
were put on their guard as much as if a notice or _caveat_ had been
filed at the War Department. In neglecting that commanding notice,
in overruling that unprecedented _caveat_, so far as to allow these
enormous supplies to be forwarded to the disarmed belligerent, they
failed in that proper care required by the occasion. If I said that
they failed in good faith, I should only give the conclusion of law on
unquestionable facts.
In the case of the _Gran Para_, Chief-Justice Marshall, after exposing
an attempt to evade our neutral obligations by an ingenious cover,
exclaimed, in words which he borrowed from an earlier period of our
history, but which have been often quoted since: “This would, indeed,
be a fraudulent neutrality, disgraceful to our own Government, and
of which no nation would be the dupe.”[7] I forbear at present to
apply these memorable words, which show with what indignant language
our great Chief-Justice blasted an attempt to evade our neutral
obligations. In calling it fraudulent he was not deterred by the petty
cry of a false patriotism, that his judgment might affect the good name
of our country. Full well he knew that national character could suffer
only where fraud is maintained.
I doubt much if the true rule can be laid down in better words than
those I quoted on a former occasion from the Spanish minister at
Stockholm, denouncing the sale of Swedish frigates.[8] He protested
against “arms and munitions furnished through _intermediate
speculators_, under pretence of not knowing the result,” which
he exhibited as an “act of hostility” and a “political scandal.”
According to this excellent protest, the sale is not protected from
condemnation merely by “intermediate speculators” and the “pretence
of not knowing the result.” And this is only according to undoubted
reason. It is simply a question of good faith; and if, taking into view
the circumstances of the case and the condition of the times, there
is reasonable ground to believe that “intermediate speculators” are
purchasing for a belligerent, then the sale cannot be made, nor will
any “pretence of not knowing the result” be of avail.
In harmony with this Spanish protest is the calm statement of a Joint
Committee of Congress, where this question of international duty is
treated wisely. I read from the report of Mr. Jenckes on the sale of
certain ironclads:--
“Perhaps the international feature of this transaction is the
most grave one for the consideration of Congress. It is a matter
of notorious public history that war was being carried on in the
years 1865 and 1866 between the Government of Spain, on the one
hand, and the Governments of Peru and Chili, on the other. During
the pendency of hostilities, applications were made to obtain
possession of these vessels for one of the belligerents. If the
Government of the United States had been _privy_ to any arrangement
by which these vessels of war should be delivered to the agents
of a belligerent, either in our own ports or upon the high seas,
it would certainly have violated its international obligations.
Of course, when Congress authorized the sale of these vessels, it
was known that individuals had no use for them; yet it might have
assumed, as in the case of the Dunderberg and the Onondaga,”--