“that the Executive Department would take care that any
individual who should purchase with a view to a resale to some
foreign power would not be permitted to violate the obligations of
the United States as a neutral nation.”[9]
Observe, if you please, the language employed. If the Government of the
United States had been “privy” to any arrangement for the delivery of
these vessels to the agents of a belligerent, it would certainly have
violated its international obligations. This is undoubtedly correct.
Then comes the assumption “that the Executive Department would _take
care_ that any individual who should purchase _with a view to a resale_
to some foreign power would not be permitted to violate the obligations
of the United States as a neutral nation.” Here again is the true rule.
The Executive is bound to take care that there shall be no sale with a
view to a resale in violation of neutral duties.
All this is so entirely reasonable, indeed so absolutely essential to
the simplest performance of international duty, that I feel humbled
even in stating it. The case is too clear. It is like arguing the
Ten Commandments or the Multiplication Table. International Law is
nothing but international morality for the guidance of nations. And
be assured, Sir, that interpretation is the truest which subjects the
nation most completely to the Moral Law. “Thou shalt not sell arms
to a belligerent,” is a commandment addressed to nations, and to be
obeyed precisely as that other commandment, “Thou shalt not steal.”
No temptation of money, no proffer of cash, no chink of “the almighty
dollar,” can excuse any departure from this supreme law; nor can any
intervening man-of-straw have any other effect than to augment the
offence by the shame of a trick.
Here, Sir, I am sensitive for my country. I can imagine no pecuniary
profits, no millions poured into the Treasury, that can compensate for
a departure from that international honesty which is at once the best
policy and the highest duty. The dishonesty of a nation is illimitable
in its operation. How true are the words,--
“’Twill be recorded for a precedent;
And many an error, by the same example,
Will rush into the State: it cannot be.”[10]
The demoralization is felt not at home only. Whatever any nation does
is an example for other nations; whatever the Great Republic does is a
testimony. I would have that testimony pure, lofty, just, so that we
may welcome it when commended to ourselves; so that, indeed, it may be
a glorious landmark in the history of civilization.
Therefore do I insist that international obligations, especially when
war is raging, cannot be evaded, cannot be slighted, cannot be trifled
with. They are not only sacred, they are sacrosanct; and whoso lays
hands on them, whoso neglects them, whoso closes his eyes to their
violation, is guilty of a dishonesty which, to the extent of its
influence, must weaken public morals at home, while it impairs the
safeguards of peace with other nations and sets ajar the very gates of
War.
This question cannot be treated with levity, and waved out of sight
by a doubtful story. Even if Count Bismarck, adapting himself to the
situation, and anxious to avoid additional controversy, had declared
in conversation that he would take these arms on the banks of the
Loire,[11] this is no excuse for us. Our rule of duty is not found
in the courageous gayety of any foreign statesman, but in the Law of
Nations, which we are bound to obey, not only for the sake of others,
but for the sake of ourselves. All other nations may be silent; Count
Bismarck may be taciturn; but we cannot afford to cry, “Hush!” The evil
example must be corrected, and the more swiftly the better.
On this simple statement of International Law, it is evident that
there must be inquiry to see if through the misfeasance of officials
our Government has not in some way failed to comply with its neutral
duties. Subordinates in England are charged with allowing the escape of
the Alabama. Have any subordinates among us played a similar part? It
is of subordinates that I speak. Has the Government suffered through
them? Has their misfeasance, their jobbery, their illicit dealing,
compromised our country? Is there any ring about the Ordnance Bureau
through which our neutral duties have been set at nought? Here I might
stop without proceeding further. The question is too grave to be
blinked out of sight; it must be met on the law and the facts.
In this presentation I do not argue. The case requires a statement
only. Beyond this I point to the honorable example which our country
has set in times past. The equity with which we have discharged our
neutral obligations has been the occasion of constant applause. Mr.
Ward, the accomplished historian of the Law of Nations, and also
of a treatise on the “Rights and Duties of Belligerent and Neutral
Powers,” which Chancellor Kent says “exhausted all the law and learning
applicable to the question,”[12] wrote in 1801, four years after
Washington’s retirement:--
“Of the great trading nations, America is almost the only one that
has shown consistency of principle. The firmness and thorough
understanding of the Laws of Nations, which during this war [the
French Revolution] she has displayed, must forever rank her high in
the scale of enlightened communities.”[13]
Another English writer, Sir Robert Phillimore, author of the
comprehensive work on International Law, speaks of the conduct of the
United States as, “under the most trying circumstances, marked not only
by a perfect consistency, but by _preference for duty and right_ over
interest and the expediency of the moment.”[14] Then again, in another
place, the same English authority, after a summary of our practice and
jurisprudence in seizing and condemning vessels captured in violation
of neutrality, declares:--
“In these doctrines a severe, _but a just_, conception of the
duties and rights of neutrality appears to be embodied.”[15]
An excellent French writer on International Law, Baron de Cussy,
remarks, on mentioning our course with reference to a steamer purchased
by Prussia in its war with Denmark in 1849,--
“It affords a genuine proof of respect for the obligations of
neutrality.”[16]
American loyalty to neutral duties received the homage of the eminent
orator and statesman Mr. Canning, who, from his place in Parliament,
said:--
“If I wished for a guide in a system of neutrality, I should
take that laid down by America in the days of the Presidency of
Washington and the Secretaryship of Jefferson.”[17]
These testimonies may be fitly concluded by the words of Mr. Rush, so
long our Minister in England, who records with just pride the honor
accorded to our doctrines on neutral duties:--
“They are doctrines that will probably receive more and more
approbation from all nations as time goes on, and continues to
bring with it, as we may reasonably hope, further meliorations to
the code of war. They are as replete with international wisdom as
with American dignity and spirit.…
“Come what may in the future, we can never be deprived of this
inheritance. It is a proud and splendid inheritance.”[18]
Such is the great and honest fame already achieved by our Republic
in upholding neutral duties. No victory in our history has conferred
equal renown. Surely you are not ready to forget the precious
inheritance. No, Sir, let us guard it as one of the best possessions
of our common country,--guard it loyally, so that it shall continue
without diminution or spot. Here there must be no backward step. Not
_Backward_, but _Forward_, must be our watchword in the march of
civilization.
* * * * *
I am now brought to that other branch of the subject which concerns
directly the conduct of our officials; and here my purpose is to
simplify the question. Therefore I shall avoid details, which have
occupied the Senate for days; and I put aside the apparent discrepancy
between the Annual Report of the War Department and the Annual Report
of the Treasurer, which has been satisfactorily explained on this
floor, so that this ground of inquiry is removed. I bring the case to
certain heads, which, taken together in their mass, make it impossible
for us to avoid inquiry, without leaving the Government or some of its
officials exposed to serious suspicion. Now, as at the beginning, I
make no accusation against any officer of our Government,--none against
the President, none against the Secretary of War; but I exhibit reasons
for the present proceeding.
The case naturally opens with the resolution of the Committee of the
French Assembly, asking the United States “to furnish the result of the
inquiry into the conduct of American officials who were suspected of
participating in the purchase of arms for the French Government during
the war.” This seems to have been adopted as late as February 9th last
past. At least it appears in the cable dispatch of that date.[19] From
this resolution three things are manifest: first, that the sale of arms
by our Government is occupying the attention of the French Legislature;
secondly, that American officials are suspected of participating in the
purchase for the French Government; and, thirdly, that it is supposed
that our Government has instituted an inquiry into the case.
This resolution is, I believe, without precedent. I recall no other
instance where a foreign legislative assembly has made any inquiry
into the conduct of the officials of another country. If this were
done in an inimical or even a critical spirit, it might, perhaps,
be dismissed with indifference. But France, once in our history an
all-powerful ally, is now a friendly power, with which we are in the
best relations. Any movement on her part with regard to the conduct of
our officials must be received according to the rules of comity and
good-will. It cannot be disregarded. It ought to be anticipated. This
resolution alone would justify inquiry on our part.
Passing to evidence, I come to the telegraphic dispatch of Squire,
son-in-law and agent of Remington, actually addressed in French cipher
to the latter in France, under date of October 8, 1870. Though brief,
it is most important:--
“We have _the strongest influences_ working for us, which will use
all their efforts to succeed.”
Considering the writer of this dispatch, his family and business
relations with Remington, to whom it was addressed, it is difficult
to regard it except as a plain revelation of actual facts. It was
important that Remington should know the precise condition of things.
His son-in-law and agent telegraphs that “the strongest influences”
are at work for them. What can this mean? Surely here is no broker
or arms-merchant, engaged in the course of business. It is something
else,--plainly something else. What? That is the point for inquiry. Mr.
Squire is an American citizen. Let him be examined and cross-examined,
under oath. Let him disclose what he meant by “the strongest
influences.” He could not have intended to deceive his father-in-law,
and puff himself. He was doubtless in earnest. Did he deceive himself?
On this he is a witness. But until those words are so far explained
as to show that they do not point to officials, the natural inference
is that it was on them that he relied,--that they were “the strongest
influences” by which the job was to be carried through; for, of course,
it was a job which he announced.
It cannot be doubted that this dispatch of Mr. Squire by itself alone
is enough to justify inquiry. Without the resolution of the French
Assembly, and without the supplementary testimony to be adduced, it
throws a painful suspicion upon our officials, which should compel them
to explain.
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.”