MR. WELLER (of California). I desire to make one remark in
regard to the rule.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not in order now. The question
must be taken without debate.
MR. SUMNER. Allow me to state the case as it seems to me.
I was on the floor, and yielded it to the Senator from Wisconsin
strictly for the purpose of an explanation. When he finished, I was
in possession of the floor; and then it was that the Senator from
Louisiana, on my right----
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Massachusetts
give leave to the Chair to explain?
MR. SUMNER. Certainly.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. A point of order was made by the
Senator from California [Mr. GWIN], that debate was not in
order upon the question of granting leave; and the Chair so decided.
The Senator from Massachusetts then lost the floor, as I apprehend, and
he certainly did by following it up by an appeal. After that he could
go no further. He lost the floor then again for a second time, and then
it was that the Senator from Louisiana intervened with another motion,
which is certainly in order, to lay the appeal on the table. That is
not debatable. This, it seems to me, is the state of the case.
[134] The motion was clearly out of order: first, because in the
Senate an appeal from the decision of the Chair on a question of
order cannot be laid on the table; and, secondly, because Mr.
Sumner was already on the floor, so that Mr. Benjamin could not
make a motion.
MR. CHASE (of Ohio). Will the Chair allow me to make a single
statement?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Certainly.
MR. CHASE. The Senator from Massachusetts rose and held
the floor during the suggestion made to the Chair by the Senator
from Wisconsin. The Chair then, after the Senator from Wisconsin had
finished his suggestion, declared his opinion to be, notwithstanding
the suggestion, that debate was not in order. The Senator from
Massachusetts then took an appeal, and retained the floor for the
purpose of addressing the Senate on that appeal. While he occupied the
floor, the Senator from Louisiana rose and moved to lay the appeal upon
the table. That will be borne out by the gentlemen present.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is so; but the Chair does not
understand that debate was in order on the appeal. The appeal was to be
decided without debate, and therefore the Senator from Massachusetts
necessarily lost the floor after he took the appeal.
MR. BELL (of Tennessee). I would inquire whether there is not
a bill already pending for the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I have not inquired of the Secretary,
but it is my belief there is a similar bill pending; but it was not on
that ground the Chair made this ruling.
MR. BELL. I would inquire whether there is not such a bill
pending? Did not the honorable Senator from Ohio some time ago bring in
such a bill?
MR. WELLER. I think he did.
MR. CHASE. No, Sir.
MR. BELL. Then I am mistaken.
MR. CHASE. My bill is not on that subject.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion of the
Senator from Louisiana, to lay on the table the appeal taken by the
Senator from Massachusetts from the decision of the Chair.
MR. CHASE. I ask if the motion of the Senator from Louisiana
is in order, when the Senator from Massachusetts retained the floor for
the purpose of debating the appeal?
MR. BENJAMIN. The Senator is not in order in renewing that
question, which has already been decided by the Chair.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Chair acted under an erroneous
impression in supposing that debate on the appeal was not in order,
when it actually is, it was the fault of the Chair, and it would not
have been in order for the Senator from Louisiana to make the motion
which he did make, while the Senator from Massachusetts was on the
floor. But the Chair recognized the Senator from Louisiana, supposing
that the Senator from Massachusetts had yielded the floor. The Senator
had taken an appeal; he followed it up by no address to the Chair,
indicating an intention that he intended to debate the appeal, or the
Chair certainly should so far have recognized him. But the Chair would
reconsider his ruling in that respect, with the consent of the Senator
from Louisiana.
MR. BRIGHT (of Indiana). The Chair will permit me to suggest
that I think the motion proper to be entertained now is the one
proposed by the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. NORRIS].
The Senator from Massachusetts presented his bill; the Senator from
New Hampshire raised the question as to whether the Senate would
grant leave to introduce it; and I think the proper question to be
put now is, Will the Senate grant leave to introduce a bill repealing
the Fugitive Slave Law? The effect of the motion of the Senator from
Louisiana would be to lay the subject on the table, from which it might
be taken at any time for action. For one, I desire to give a decisive
vote now, declaring that I am unwilling to legislate upon the subject,
that I am satisfied with the law as it reads, and that I will not aid
the Senator from Massachusetts, or any Senator, in----
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is certainly
not in order.
MR. BRIGHT. I certainly am in order in calling the attention
of the Chair to the fact that the Senator from New Hampshire----
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is not in
order.
MR. BRIGHT. Then I will sit down and ask the Chair to state
wherein I am out of order.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. In discussing a question which is not
before the Senate.
MR. BRIGHT. I claim that the motion is before the Senate. The
Senator from New Hampshire raised the question immediately, that----
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair decides otherwise.
MR. BRIGHT. Then I appeal from the decision of the Chair, and
I state this as my point of order: that, before the bill was presented
in legal parlance, the Senator from New Hampshire raised the question
as to whether the Senate would grant leave, and that is the point now
before the Senate.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will state the question which
he supposes to be pending. The Senator from California made a point
of order, that debate on the bill proposed to be introduced by the
Senator from Massachusetts was not in order. The Chair so ruled. From
that ruling the Senator from Massachusetts took an appeal. The Chair
supposed that the Senator from Massachusetts had yielded the floor,
and he gave the floor to the Senator from Louisiana, who moved to lay
that appeal on the table. That is the question which is now pending.
The Chair before suggested, that, if the Senator from Massachusetts
had not yielded the floor, he had made a mistake in giving the floor
to the Senator from Louisiana, but he did not suppose that the Senator
from Massachusetts, after taking the appeal, without some indication of
his intention to debate it, could continue to hold the floor, and he
therefore recognized the Senator from Louisiana. The Chair is sorry, if
he did the Senator from Massachusetts injustice in that respect; but he
did not hear him, and recognized the Senator from Louisiana.
MR. BRIGHT. I would respectfully ask the Chair what has become
of the motion submitted by the Senator from New Hampshire?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair did not understand him to
submit a motion, but the Senator from California took his point of
order.
MR. BRIGHT. I wish to inquire of the Senator from New
Hampshire whether he has withdrawn his motion?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It was not entertained. It is not
in his power to say whether it was withdrawn or not, for it was not
entertained.
MR. NORRIS. I think I can inform my friend from Indiana how
the matter stands. The Senator from Massachusetts proposed to introduce
a bill on notice given. I raised the question, that it could not be
introduced without leave of the Senate, if there was objection.
MR. SUMNER. Do I understand the Senator to say without notice
given? I asked leave to introduce the bill in pursuance of notice.
MR. NORRIS. The Senator from Massachusetts, I have already
stated, offered his bill agreeably to previous notice.
MR. SUMNER. Precisely.
MR. NORRIS. The question was then raised, whether it could be
received, if there was objection? The question arose, whether leave
should be granted to the Senator from Massachusetts to introduce the
bill?
MR. SUMNER. That is the first question.
MR. NORRIS. The Senator from Massachusetts, upon the question
of granting leave, undertook to address the Senate. He was then called
to order by my friend from California for discussing that question. The
Chair sustained the objection of the Senator from California. From the
decision of the Chair the Senator from Massachusetts took an appeal;
and that is where the question now stands, unless the Senator from
Louisiana had a right to make the motion which he did make, which was
to lay the appeal on the table.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, unless the Senator
from Louisiana will disembarrass the Chair by withdrawing it, on the
motion of the Senator from Louisiana to lay the appeal on the table.
MR. SUMNER. On that motion I ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
MR. FOOT (of Vermont). On what motion have the yeas and nays
been ordered?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. On the motion of the Senator from
Louisiana.
MR. WALKER. I wish to know, before voting, what will be the
effect of a vote given in the affirmative on this motion? Will it carry
the bill and the whole subject on the table?
MR. FOOT. An affirmative vote carries the whole measure on the
table.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Sir; if the motion to lay on the
table be agreed to, it carries the bill with it.
SEVERAL SENATORS. No, no!
MR. BENJAMIN. The question is, whether, on the motion for
leave to introduce the bill, there shall be debate? The Chair has
decided that there shall be no debate. Those who vote "yea" on my
motion to lay the appeal of the Senator from Massachusetts on the table
will vote that there is to be no debate upon the permission to offer
the bill, and then the question will be taken upon granting leave.
MR. WALKER. The Chair decides differently. The Chair decides,
if I understand, that it will carry the bill on the table. Then how can
we ever reach the question of leave, when objection is made?
MR. WELLER. I object to this discussion. The Chair will decide
that question when it arises. It does not arise now. I insist that the
Secretary shall go on and call the roll.
MR. WALKER. Suppose some of us object to it?
MR. WELLER. Then I object to your discussing it.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, on reflection, thinks that
the motion, if agreed to, would not have a further effect than to bring
up the question of granting leave.
MR. BRIGHT. I desire to understand the Chair. I do not wish
to insist on anything that is not right, or that is not within the
rules. That I insist upon having. The honorable Senator from Louisiana
is right in his conclusions as to his motion, provided he had a right
to make the motion; but I doubt whether he had a right to make that
motion while the motion of the honorable Senator from New Hampshire was
pending. I do not wish, however, to consume the time of the Senate.
If the effect of the decision of the Chair is to bring us back to the
question as to whether we shall receive the bill or not, I will yield
the floor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is it.
MR. BRIGHT. Very well.
MR. SUMNER. Before the vote is taken, allow me to read a few
words from the Rules and Orders, and from Jefferson's Manual.
"One day's notice, at least, shall be given of an intended motion
for leave to bring in a bill."
That is the 25th rule of the Senate; and then to that rule, in the
publication which I now hold in my hand, is appended, from Jefferson's
Manual, the following decisive language:--
"When a member desires to bring in a bill on any subject, _he
states to the House, in general terms, the causes for doing it_,
and concludes by moving for leave to bring in a bill entitled, &c.
Leave being given, on the question, a committee is appointed to
prepare and bring in the bill."
Now I would simply observe, that my purpose was merely to make a
statement----
MR. BENJAMIN. I call to order.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator had presented his bill,
and was debating it afterwards. The question is on the motion of the
Senator from Louisiana to lay the appeal on the table, and on that the
yeas and nays have been ordered.
The question, being taken by yeas and nays, resulted,--yeas 35, nays
10, as follows:--
YEAS,--Messrs. Adams, Atchison, Bell, Benjamin, Brodhead, Brown,
Butler, Cass, Clay, Cooper, Dawson, Dodge, of Iowa, Evans,
Fitzpatrick, Geyer, Gwin, Johnson, Jones, of Iowa, Jones, of
Tennessee, Mallory, Mason, Morton, Norris, Pearce, Pettit, Pratt,
Rusk, Sebastian, Slidell, Stuart, Thompson, of Kentucky, Thomson,
of New Jersey, Toombs, Toucey, and Weller,--35.
NAYS,--Messrs. Chase, Fessenden, Fish, Foot, Gillette, Rockwell,
Seward, Sumner, Wade, and Walker,--10.
So the appeal was ordered to lie on the table.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on granting leave
to introduce the bill.
MR. SUMNER. On that question I ask for the yeas and nays.
MR. STUART. I rise to a question of order; and I think, if
the Chair will consider it for the moment, he will, or at least I
hope he will, agree with me. The parliamentary law is the law under
which the Senate act. Whenever there is a motion made to lay on the
table a subject connected with the main subject, and it prevails, it
carries the whole question with it. It is different entirely from the
rules in the House of Representatives. The rules in the House vary the
parliamentary law, and you may there move to lay a matter on the table,
because that is the final vote, and is equivalent to rejecting it,
and a motion to take it up from the table is not in order. But now the
Presiding Officer will see, that, if this course be pursued, the Senate
may grant leave to introduce this bill, they may go on and pass it, and
yet next week it will be in order for the Senator from Massachusetts
to move to take up the appeal which the Senate has just laid on the
table; whereas the whole subject on which his appeal rested might have
been passed and sent to the other House. That surely cannot be so. The
ruling of the Chair in this respect, therefore, I suggest is wrong, and
the motion to lay on the table carries the whole subject with it. It
is important to have the matter settled for the future practice of the
Senate.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. At the first mooting of the
proposition, the Chair was of that opinion; but he is perfectly
satisfied now that it did not carry the whole question with it. The
question was on the motion to lay the appeal on the table, and that
motion was exhausted when it did lay the appeal on the table. It did
not reach back to affect the question of granting leave. That is now
the question before the Senate. On that the yeas and nays have been
asked for by the Senator from Massachusetts.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
MR. STUART. I will not take an appeal from the decision
of the Chair, but I only wish to say, that, as I am
satisfied I am right, I do not wish, by acquiescing in the
decision of the Chair, to embarrass us when such occasions
may arise again.
The question, being taken by yeas and nays upon granting leave to
introduce the bill, resulted,--yeas 10, nays 35, as follows:--
YEAS,--Messrs. Chase, Dodge, of Wisconsin, Fessenden, Foot, Gillette,
Rockwell, Seward, Sumner, Wade, and Walker,--10.
NAYS,--Messrs. Adams, Atchison, Bell, Benjamin, Bright, Brodhead,
Brown, Butler, Cass, Clay, Cooper, Dawson, Evans, Fitzpatrick,
Geyer, Gwin, Johnson, Jones, of Iowa, Jones, of Tennessee, Mallory,
Mason, Morton, Norris, Pearce, Pettit, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Slidell,
Stuart, Thompson, of Kentucky, Thomson, of New Jersey, Toombs,
Toucey, and Weller,--35.
So the Senate refused to grant leave to introduce the bill.
DUTIES OF MASSACHUSETTS AT THE PRESENT CRISIS.
FORMATION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
SPEECH BEFORE THE REPUBLICAN STATE CONVENTION AT WORCESTER,
SEPTEMBER 7, 1854.
The Free-Soil party, having assumed the name of Republican party,
held its Annual Convention at Worcester, September 7, 1854. It was
organized by the following officers: Hon. Robert Rantoul, of Beverly,
the venerable father of the late Mr. Rantoul, as President; George
R. Russell, of West Roxbury, B. W. Gage, of Charlestown, Samuel
Hopkins, of Northampton, Charles Shute, of Hingham, Albert Currier,
of Newburyport, Warren Lovering, of Medway, Adam Harrington, of
Shrewsbury, Francis Watkins, of Hinsdale, Robert Sturtevant, of Savoy,
Asaph Churchill, of Dorchester, Richard P. Waters, of Beverly, William
Washburn, of Boston, Charles Beck, of Cambridge, Benjamin B. Sisson,
of Westport, Joel Shed, of Bridgewater, Augustus Morse, of Leominster,
Foster Hooper, of Fall River, Levi Reed, of Abington, John A. Andrew,
of Hingham, Vice-Presidents; Joseph Denny, of Worcester, William H.
Harris, of Worcester, E. W. Stacy, of Milford, Charles R. Ladd, of
Chicopee, William H. DeCosta, of Charlestown, Secretaries. At the same
Convention Hon. Henry Wilson was nominated for Governor, and Hon.
Increase Sumner for Lieutenant-Governor. John A. Andrew, Esq., was made
Chairman of the State Committee.
Mr. Sumner's reception in the Convention was quickened by recent
events in which he had borne part. It is thus described in a report of
the Convention.
"At this point the Hon. Charles Sumner entered the hall. His
reception was such as is rarely accorded to a public man. The
whole vast audience rose as one man to welcome him, and the most
deafening cheers of welcome resounded for several minutes. We have
never seen a more hearty and enthusiastic demonstration in honor of
any man. It was the spontaneous homage of true men to the man who
had upheld the Freedom standard and carried it into the thickest of
the fight,--to the man who had upheld the honor of Massachusetts
in the Senate, vindicated her opinions, and thrown back upon her
assailants the taunts and insults which they had never ceased to
heap upon her. The cheering, as our Senator appeared upon the
platform and took his seat, was loud and long continued."
Mr. Sumner was at once called to speak. His speech is given as reported
by the Boston _Traveller_, which ran a special train in one hour
from Worcester, a distance of forty miles, in order to lay it before the
public without delay.
In this speech Mr. Sumner had two objects,--first, to vindicate
the necessity of the Republican party, and, secondly, to destroy
the operation of the Fugitive Slave Act in Massachusetts, showing
especially that citizens are not constrained to its support. His
position with regard to the oath to support the Constitution was much
discussed at the time, and the _National Intelligencer_, in elaborate
articles by Mr. Gales, undertook to call him to account. To the latter
he replied by letter. The speech had an extensive circulation.
Mr. Sumner came to the Convention at the invitation of Mr. Andrew,
Chairman of the Provisional State Committee, whose first letter, dated
July 22, 1854, was as follows.
"You will have seen, before receiving this note, the report of the
meeting at Worcester, at which _a new party was begun_, and the
steps preliminary to a State nominating convention taken. I think,
in spite of strong opposition from the Whig presses and fuglemen,
who cannot bear to give up their factitious powers and influence,
that there is a great popular movement commenced, which may, under
proper cultivation, disclose a splendid result in the fall. But
more depends upon the aid you can give than upon that of any one
man. Your recent battles in the Senate have shut the mouth of
personal opposition, wrung applause from the unwilling, excited a
State's pride and gratitude, such as rarely it is the fortune of
any one to win. Your presence at the nominating convention, to be
held on the 10th of August,--probably at Springfield,--is a point
which must be agreed to at once. It will secure a most triumphant
meeting, certainly in point of numbers and enthusiasm. I want you
to write to me at once, permitting me to say to any of our friends
that you _will_ attend the meeting. A speech of half an hour, or
an hour, is all that you _need_ make, though you could have three
hours, if you would use them.... I am bold, speak urgently, since
I am, as Chairman of the Provisional State Committee, officially
responsible for the utmost exertions to serve the cause in this
behalf."
This was followed by another letter from Mr. Andrew, dated August
28, 1854, as follows.
"I, however, wish to have the authority now to say definitely to
all inquirers that you will be present on the 7th, and address
the convention, and I wish this to be considered as a formal and
official invitation. There are constant references made to the
hope of seeing and hearing you there, on all hands. Everybody
counts for that gratification. And we can do nothing which will
so completely secure a triumphant gathering as to announce your
name. The whole Free-Soil party, proud of your recent achievements,
and grateful for the many exhibitions of your devotedness to our
principles at all times of hazard and necessity, and the people
of all parties, who feel you to have been the most conspicuously
representative man to whom Massachusetts has intrusted her interest
in Congress since the death of John Quincy Adams, are alike anxious
to greet you.
"I do not wish you to feel under the necessity of preparing for one
of your greatest speeches. No one will demand that of you. They
only want you to come, and to say what seems to yourself proper to
say at the time."
The speech drew from Mr. Chase the following expression.
"Your speech was just the thing. I read it with delighted
admiration. Only one thing abated my pleasure,--the dissolution of
the Independent Democracy. I am now without a party: but no matter;
I shall soon cease to have any connection with politics."