“intermediate speculators, and under pretence of not knowing the
result? Informed of these preparations, would the Cabinet of
Stockholm wait till the steel and the cannon furnished to its
enemies had mown down its soldiers, till the vessels delivered to
the rebels had annihilated its commerce and desolated its coasts,
to protest against similar supplies, and to prevent them if
possible? And if the protests were rejected, independently of every
other measure, would it not raise its voice throughout Europe, and
at the courts of all its allies, against this _act of hostility_,
against this violation of the rights of sovereignty, and against
this _political scandal_?”--_Causes Célèbres_, Tom. II. pp. 472-73.
These are strong words, but they only give expression to the feelings
naturally awakened in a Power that seemed to be imperilled by such an
act.
In another communication the same minister said to the Swedish
Government:--
“It is the doctrine of irresponsibility which the Cabinet of
Stockholm professes with regard to the sale of these war vessels,
which excites the most lively representations on the part of the
undersigned.”--_Note of 15 July 1825_: Ibid., p. 480.
Mark the words, “the doctrine of irresponsibility.” Then, again, the
minister says in other words worthy of consideration at this moment:--
“The Swedish Government on this occasion, creating this new kind
of commerce, determined to furnish ships of war indiscriminately
to every purchaser, even to private individuals without
guaranty,--establishing, as it seems to indicate, that the
commercial benefits of these sales are for the State a necessity of
an order superior to political considerations the most elevated, as
to moral obligations the most respectable.”--_Note of 9 September,
1825_: Ibid., p. 486.
I ask if these words are not applicable to the present case? Did it
not become the Government of the United States at this time, when
making these large sales, almost gigantic, so that its suspicion was
necessarily aroused, to institute inquiry into the real character of
the purchaser? Was it not put on its guard? Every morning told us of
war unhappily raging in Europe. Could there be doubt that these large
purchases were for the benefit of one of the belligerents? Was our
Government so situated that for the sake of these profits it would
neglect political considerations called in this dispatch the most
elevated, as moral obligations the most respectable? Was it ready to
assume the responsibility characterized by the Spanish minister in a
case less plain, as “an act of hostility,” a “violation of the rights
of sovereignty,” a “political scandal”?
PARLIAMENTARY LAW ON THE APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEES OF THE
SENATE.
TWO PROTESTS AGAINST THE COMPETENCY OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE TO
INVESTIGATE THE SALE OF ARMS TO FRANCE; MARCH 26 AND 27, 1872.
March 26, 1872, Mr. Sumner appeared before the Committee to
investigate the sale of arms by the United States during the French
and German War, in response to a communication signed by the
chairman of the Committee requesting his attendance. After reading
this communication, Mr. Sumner proceeded to read and file a protest
in the following terms:--