I object to the proposition of my friend from Rhode Island, which I
cannot but think he has introduced hastily and without sufficient
consideration, or at any rate under influences which I think his own
better judgment should have rejected. I am against it on several
grounds. If I said it was contrary to precedent, I should not err; for
the attempt made the other day to show that there was precedent for
such a proceeding, it seems to me, signally failed. Attention was then
called to a resolution adopted at a session of Congress convened by the
President of the United States for a declared purpose, announced at the
time in advance. I think the course taken by Congress was regarded as
questionable, even under the peculiar circumstances. But the two cases
are different. The present session is not like that. It is a continuing
session of a Congress begun on the 4th day of March last, being simply
a prolongation of that session; and the practical question is, whether
you will limit the business of Congress in a general session called
under a statute of the United States. Clearly there is no precedent for
any such proceeding. You plunge into darkness without a guide.
But I go further, and I say, that, even if there were a precedent, I
would reject it; for I much prefer to follow the National Constitution.
I do not say that the text of the Constitution positively forbids the
proposition, but I cannot doubt that the spirit of the Constitution
is against it. How often, in other times, have we all throbbed with
indignation at the resolution in the other House, also in this Chamber,
to stifle discussion on a great question! You do not forget the odious
rule by the name of the “Gag,” attached to which was the name of its
author, beginning with the letter A.[229] I hope there will be no other
gag of a larger character to be classified with the letter A. That was
justly offensive, because it violated the right of petition; but you
propose not only to interfere with the right of petition, but also with
all possible measures concerning the public welfare, except as they may
relate to one single business, and that in its narrowest relations.
I object to such a proposition as in its spirit unconstitutional. I
appeal to my associates to reject it, that it may not pass into history
as a precedent of evil example to be employed against Freedom. You may
see, Sir, how obstructive it is, if you will glance at certain matters
within my own knowledge, which, I submit, it is our duty to consider,
and my duty as a Senator to press upon your attention. No relations
with political associates can absolve me from official responsibility.
Every Senator, doubtless, has within his own knowledge business which
in his judgment deserves attention, and other business which he does
not doubt must be acted on. There are Senators on the other side of
the Chamber who will plead the cause of the frontiers menaced by the
Indians. I have heard something of that peril from chance travellers
during these few weeks past; and yet, by the proposition of my friend
from Rhode Island, we are to abandon the frontiers, and I know no other
reason than that the weather is too hot. It may be hot in this Chamber;
but it is hotter there. The reports from the frontier show that danger
has begun. The sound of the war-whoop has broken even into this
Capitol. The corpses of fellow-countrymen lie unburied on the roadside,
and their memories haunt us. And yet we fold our hands, and decline to
supply the needed protection.
Mr. Sumner then alluded to the necessity of legislation to
carry out a recent treaty with Venezuela, and also the treaty
with Russia.
I mean that important treaty by which the Emperor of Russia has
ceded to the United States all his possessions on the North American
continent. The ratifications were exchanged only about a fortnight
ago. Yesterday, the 4th of July, I was honored by a visit from the
Minister of Russia, who put into my hand a cable despatch from St.
Petersburg, announcing that on the day before the Russian Commissioner
left St. Petersburg for Washington to make the formal surrender of that
vast region to the United States. To my inquiry when the Commissioner
would arrive the Minister replied, “In a fortnight.” In a fortnight,
then, final proceedings will be had for the establishment of your
jurisdiction over that region, and two questions arise: first, our
duty to complete the contract, in consideration of the cession, to
pay $7,200,000; and, secondly, our other duty to provide a proper
government. But the proposition of my friend from Rhode Island would
exclude these important topics from our consideration.
MR. ANTHONY. Would the Senator have the Senate originate an
appropriation bill?
MR. SUMNER. I would have the Senate originate a bill for the
government of this territory, and, if need be, originate a bill
for the payment of the money due. There is no objection in the
Constitution.
MR. ANTHONY. It has never been done.
MR. SUMNER. I beg the Senator’s pardon; it has been done again
and again.
MR. ANTHONY. An appropriation bill originated in the Senate?
MR. SUMNER. Oh, yes.
MR. ANTHONY. I never knew that to be done but once; and then
the House rejected it, refused to consider it.
MR. SUMNER. The Senator refers to what are called the general
appropriation bills. The Senate constantly makes appropriations for
individual cases and for carrying out treaties. Does it not appropriate
for private claims, for salaries, for other obligations? In principle,
the present case does not differ from an appropriation for an estate
adjoining the Capitol. Alaska is not an estate adjoining the Capitol;
but it is to be paid for.
That I may make this clearer, I call attention to the very words of the
treaty with Russia:--
“His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias shall appoint
with convenient despatch an agent or agents for the purpose
of formally delivering to a similar agent or agents appointed
on behalf of the United States the territory, dominion,
property, dependencies, and appurtenances which are ceded as
above, and for doing any other act which may be necessary in
regard thereto. But the cession, with the right of immediate
possession, is nevertheless to be deemed complete and absolute
on the exchange of ratifications, without waiting for such
formal delivery.”[230]
So that, by the terms of the treaty, on the exchange of ratifications
you became possessors of this jurisdiction; and now, by the
approaching surrender, through an official agent, your jurisdiction
will be consummated. With this jurisdiction will be corresponding
responsibilities. You must govern the territory; you must provide
protection for the property and the other interests there. Already,
by the telegraph, we learn that a large ship is about to leave San
Francisco for Sitka, with merchandise of all kinds. There is also the
immense fur-trade, which has been the exclusive Russian interest ever
since the discovery of the country, which will be left open, without
regulation, unless you interfere by appropriate law. There is that
most important fur, the origin of wealth on that whole northwestern
coast, the sea-otter, which will be exposed to lawless and destructive
depredation, unless the Government supplies some regulations. Will you
not do something? Will you leave these interests without care?
Senators exclaim, that they may be considered next winter. Do not
forget the distance between Washington and that far-away region;
you will then see how long you postpone the establishment of your
jurisdiction. Months must elapse after the meeting of Congress next
December, leaving this region without government. There should be
no delay; you should proceed at once. You certainly will not show
yourselves worthy to possess this country, unless you provide at once
a proper government. Leaving it a prey to lawless adventure, you will
only increase the difficulties of dealing with a region so vast and so
remote.
But there is another obligation still. You receive the territory; you
ought to pay the money at the same time. A Senator before me cries out,
“It will not be appropriated at this session.”
MR. EDMUNDS. It is not due yet.
MR. SUMNER. I ask the Senator’s attention to the point. I understand,
as a matter of history, in this negotiation, that, while it was
proceeding, it was proposed that the payment should be on the exchange
of ratifications, so that, when the cession was completed, the
transaction on our part should be completed also; but as the treaty
was being drawn, it was understood that there would be no meeting
of Congress before next December, while the ratifications might be
exchanged before that time. To meet this case, a special provision was
introduced, extending the time of payment to a period of ten months
from the exchange of ratifications. This explains the article I now
read:--
“In consideration of the cession aforesaid, the United States
agree to pay at the Treasury in Washington, within ten months
after the exchange of the ratifications of this convention, to
the diplomatic representative or other agent of His Majesty
the Emperor of all the Russias, duly authorized to receive the
same, seven million two hundred thousand dollars in gold.”[231]
By the letter of the treaty, you may, if you see fit, postpone the
payment to ten months from the exchange of ratifications; but I submit
to the Senator from Vermont, whether he is willing to do so,--whether,
since the transaction is consummated on the part of Russia, he is
not willing, nay, desirous also, that it shall be consummated on the
part of the United States in the spirit of the original negotiation?
I submit this as a question of sound policy,--I will not say of
integrity, but simply of sound policy on the part of our Government,
a republic representing republican institutions, by whose conduct
republican institutions are always judged. Surely you will not fail to
protect the national honor; nor will you stick at the letter of the
treaty.
* * * * *
I have alluded to two important matters under treaties; but there is
still another, more important than any treaty or any appropriation,
which dwarfs treaties and dwarfs appropriations, which is not less
important, certainly, than the protection of the frontier, now menaced
by Indians. I refer to a whole region of our Republic, embracing two
extensive States, now menaced by a foe more dangerous to the national
peace and welfare than any tribe of Indians. These are returning Rebels
in the States of Kentucky and Maryland. Provide against them. They are
Indians within your jurisdiction. You have the power; you have the
means. Give the ballot to the colored citizens in those States, as you
have given it already to colored citizens in the Rebel States, and you
will have an all-sufficient protection against these intruders. Here is
something to be done. Who doubts the power? Out of three fountains in
the Constitution it may be derived. It is your duty, then, to exercise
it. See to it that these States have a republican government. Fix in
your statute-book an authoritative definition of a republic. Enforce
the two Amendments of the Constitution,--one abolishing Slavery, and
the other declaring the rights of citizens. Any delay to exercise so
clear a power is a failure of duty; and it becomes more reprehensible,
when we consider the perils that may ensue. Communicate, if you please,
with Union citizens of those two States. Listen to what they say. Be
taught by their testimony.
I have, for instance, a letter from an eminent citizen of Maryland,
written from Baltimore the 1st of July, which concludes:--
“I will only add, that the interest felt by the loyal people of
this State in the passage of this bill cannot be overstated.”
Communicate with your late colleague upon this floor, that able and
patriotic Senator, Mr. Creswell. Listen to his testimony. There can be
no doubt that Unionists, whether black or white, in Maryland, require
your protection. Give it to them. Do not leave them a prey to Rebels.
In the same way they are exposed in Kentucky. Here is a letter from a
distinguished citizen of that State, dated July 1st: and I read these,
out of many others, simply because they are the latest; they have come
within a few hours:--
“I hope you will be able to do good at the extra session, and
extend and protect the rights of the freedmen, as they are
sadly in need of it in Kentucky. Reconstruct us; this is the
only loyal hope.”
Such is the cry. Kentucky needs reconstruction, and it is your duty
to provide it. Put her on an equality with the Rebel States. Let her
colored citizens enjoy the full-blown rights of citizens, and let the
white Unionists there have the protection of their votes. You sent
muskets once; send votes now.[232]
On your table is a bill “to enforce the several provisions of the
Constitution abolishing Slavery, declaring the immunities of citizens,
and guarantying a republican form of government by securing the
elective franchise to colored citizens.” Pass this bill, and you
furnish the needed protection in these semi-rebel States. Pass this
bill, and you supersede strife on this much-vexed and disturbing
question in other States of the Union. You at once bring to the
elective franchise thousands of good citizens, pledged by their
lives and inspired by their recently received rights to sustain the
good cause which you have so much at heart. Do this; help in this
way the final settlement of the national troubles; pass this bill
of peace,--for such it will be, giving repose in all the Northern
States,--and in this way help establish repose in all the rest of the
country. And yet I am told that even this important measure is to be
set aside. We are not to enter upon its consideration; we are not to
debate it; we are not to receive petitions in its favor. Is this right?
Is it not a neglect of duty? Is it not intolerable?
* * * * *
Mr. President, on these grounds I object to this proposition. I might
have objected to it, in the first place, as out of order, and asked
the ruling of the Chair, not doubting how the Chair, inspired always
by a generous love of human rights, must rule,--not doubting that
the Chair would say that a proposition of such a character was too
closely associated with one of the most odious measures of our history
to deserve welcome at this time. I have raised no such question. I
confine myself now to other objections. I object to it as a departure
from sound usage, as contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, and as
setting up an impediment and obstruction to the transaction of public
business of an urgent character, which you cannot neglect without
neglect of duty. I ask you to provide for the execution of recent
treaties with Venezuela and Russia, to assure protection to Unionists
in Maryland and Kentucky, and to give peace to the country. Above all,
do not make a bad precedent, to be quoted hereafter to the injury of
the Republic.
Mr. Pomeroy, of Kansas, felt “embarrassed in voting against
the resolution offered by the Senator from Rhode Island,”
but he thought it “impracticable and unwise,” that it would
“subject us to censure, and that we ourselves should regret it
hereafter.” Mr. Yates, of Illinois, “was for a special session
for a special purpose.” In reply to a question of Mr. Yates,
Mr. Sumner said:--
I do not believe Congress would have come together, if they had had
faith in the President. I believe the session beginning on the 4th of
March had its origin in want of confidence in the President. I believe
my friend agrees in that.
MR. YATES. Yes.
MR. SUMNER. It was to counteract and watch the President that Congress
met on the 4th of March. When this session was about to adjourn,
provision was made for its renewal, or a continuation or a prolongation
of it, if you may so regard it. I take it in the same spirit with the
original enactment.
It was to provide against the President, and to do such other
incidental business as the public interests might require. I never
doubted that there would be a session on the 3d of July.[233] I so
stated at the passage of the resolution. I have so stated constantly
since; and I have advised more than one gentleman connected with
Congress not to leave the country, because his post of duty was here. I
believe that I have answered the question of my friend.
And now one word more. We are assembled under an Act of Congress
and the National Constitution. By the Constitution it is provided
that “each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.” That
is all it can do. It may not annihilate proceedings; it may not
forbid proceedings. It may provide rules for them; but it cannot, in
a just sense, prevent. Therefore I submit that the resolution, if
not positively unconstitutional, is contrary to the spirit of that
instrument.
Mr. Ross, of Kansas, hoped “that either the proposition of the
Senator from Massachusetts or something similar to it would
carry.” Mr. Tipton, of Nebraska, was “embarrassed in regard
to voting for the original resolution.” After further debate,
the vote was taken on Mr. Sumner’s substitute, and it was
rejected,--Yeas 6, Nays 26.
Mr. Ross then moved a substitute limiting business “to removing
the obstructions which have been or are likely to be placed in
the way of the fair execution of the Acts of Reconstruction,”
and “such as may be rendered necessary for the preservation of
the peace on the Western frontier.” Debate ensued, in which
Mr. Howe, of Wisconsin, said: “I did not suppose any gentleman
would insist that I was bound by the decision of that body, or
by the conclusion arrived at in that consultation.… I do not
know what penalties I subject myself to by disagreeing here
and now with the conclusions then arrived at.” Mr. Wade, of
Ohio, spoke vigorously against the original resolution. In his
judgment, “there are some questions about which a Senator has
no right to conform his view to that of the majority,” and he
took the original resolution to be of that class. “It sets a
precedent of the greatest danger in high party times.” He hoped
“that no such detriment to a minority will ever be successfully
urged here.” He judged Mr. Sumner’s “measure, which is to give
universal suffrage by Act of Congress, to be upon the subject
of Reconstruction, and one of the most efficient measures
to that end; and yet gentlemen seem to suppose that that is
within the scope of the excluding clause of this resolution.”
Mr. Fessenden was equally positive the other way. He referred
to the caucus of Republican Senators where the original
resolution was prepared, which he deemed “eminently proper.”
“When gentlemen go into consultation with their friends, and
make no protest whatever against having the result of that
consultation acted upon, they agree impliedly and expressly,
in my judgment, that they will be bound on that subject by the
decision which their friends come to, unless they give notice
to the contrary,--that is to say, in case they continue to act
on the subject to the end.” Mr. Sumner followed.
MR. PRESIDENT,--I should not have said another word, but for topics
introduced by the Senator from Maine; yet before I allude to those
particularly, allow me to answer his argument, so far as I am able to
appreciate it. He will pardon me for saying that he confounds right and
power. Unquestionably the Senate has the power which he attributes to
it; but it has not the right. A jury, as we know, in giving a general
verdict, has power to say “Guilty” or “Not guilty,” disregarding the
instructions of the court; but I need not say that it is a grave
question among lawyers whether it has the right. Now, assuming that the
Senate has the power which the Senator from Maine claims, it seems to
me it has not the right. It has not the right to disregard the spirit
of the National Constitution; and the present proposition is of that
character. The Senator does not see it so, I know; for, if he did, he
could not give to it the weight of his character. Others do see it
so; and if they do, the Senator from Maine must pardon them, if they
act accordingly. The Senator would not vote for anything he regarded
as hostile to the spirit of the Constitution. I cannot attribute to
him any such conduct. Can he expect others to do what he would not do
himself? This is my answer to the argument, so far as I understand it.
Perhaps I do not do justice to it; yet I try.
There was one other point of argument. The Senate, so the Senator
argues, may postpone an individual measure to the next session. Grant
it; does it follow that they may postpone, immediately on their
arrival, the whole business to another session?
MR. FESSENDEN. They can adjourn on the next day, or on the day
they meet, if they please.
MR. SUMNER. But so long as they continue in session as a Senate, then,
under the National Constitution, they must attend to the business
of the country. They cannot tie their hands in advance. To do so is
to violate the spirit of the Constitution. The Senator cannot have
forgotten the Atherton gag, to which I referred before, without
naming it, however. Was it not justly an offence and a stench in the
nostrils of every patriot citizen? Has it not left a bad name upon
the Congresses that recognized it? But this was simply a declaration
not to receive petitions on one subject; and now, under the lead of
the Senator, we are to continue in session an indefinite time, and
to receive no petition, no bill, nothing on anything except on one
specified subject. I submit, if the Atherton gag was unconstitutional,
if it was odious, if it was a bad precedent, then you are very rash in
establishing this much broader precedent. Do not condemn the offensive
legislation of the past; do not condemn those slave-masters once so
offensive in these Chambers. You go further than they. You impose a gag
not upon petitions merely, but upon the general business of the country.
The Senator from Ohio [Mr. WADE] has, with unanswerable force, depicted
the offensive character of this precedent, and he has taught us how,
now that we are a majority, we should hesitate to set such an example
for the future. How should we feel, he has aptly reminded us, if, as a
minority, we had such a cup handed to our lips by a patriot Senator?
Doubtless, that for the time patriotism had departed.
I should not have been betrayed into these remarks now, but for topics
introduced by the Senator from Maine. When I opened this debate, this
morning, Senators will bear me witness, I made no allusion to any
discussion elsewhere. I did not think a caucus a proper subject for
this Chamber; nor did I attribute to it anything of the character
which the Senator from Maine does. He makes it not merely sacred, but
a _sacro-sanct pact_, by which every one at the meeting is solemnly
bound. What authority is there for any such conclusion? Senators went
to that caucus, I presume, like myself, without knowing what was to
be considered; and let me confess, when the proposition, in its first
form, was presented, I was startled by its offensive character. I
could not believe that a Senator, knowing the responsibilities and
duties of a Senator, and under the oath of a Senator, could start such
a thing. Well, Sir, discussion went on. The proposition was amended,
modified, mitigated, losing something of its offensiveness in form,
but it still remained substantially offensive. I am not aware that any
Senator suggested that it should be adopted as a rule of the Senate.
If any one did, I did not hear it, though paying close attention to
the discussion. I do not think the Senator from Maine made any such
suggestion. I certainly never supposed that anybody would propose such
a rule. So far as it was to have any value, I supposed it was to be the
recorded result of the deliberations of political associates,--so far
as practicable, a guide for their action, but not a constraint embodied
in a perpetual record. At the last moment, after the vote had been
declared to which the Senator from Maine refers, and to which I should
make no allusion, if he had not brought it forward, I rose in the
caucus, and said, “I will not be bound by any such proposition.” When
it had arrived at the stage to which I refer,--the Senator from Maine
will not forget it, for he interposed a remark which I will not quote
now----
MR. FESSENDEN. You had better quote it. I said, “Then you
should not have voted on the subject, if you did not mean to be
bound by the decision of the majority.”
MR. SUMNER. To which I replied, “I am a Senator of the United States.”
MR. FESSENDEN. I did not hear the reply.
MR. SUMNER. By that reply I meant that my obligations as a Senator were
above any vote in caucus; that I had no right to go into caucus and
barter away unquestioned rights on this floor. We are under obligations
here to discharge our duties as Senators. We cannot in advance tie our
hands. I have not said in so many words, “You violate the Constitution
in doing it.” Perhaps better reflection would lead me to adopt the
stronger language, and say, “You violate the National Constitution.” I
feel plainly, clearly, beyond doubt, that such is the character of the
National Constitution, and such are our obligations under it, that we
cannot, without a dereliction of duty, consent to such a proposition.
So I see it; I cannot see it otherwise.
And now I submit to my associates in this body, with whom I am proud to
act, whose good opinion I value, whether they would have me, feeling as
I do regarding this resolution, act otherwise than as I do. Should I
not, as an associate in this Chamber, anxious for the good name of the
Senate to which we all belong, proud of this Republic whose honor we
hope to bear aloft, and anxious that no precedent should be established
which may hereafter be brought to our detriment, should I not enter my
frank protest? And, doing so, do I deserve the rude suggestions that
have been made to-day? Should I be told that one may not go into a
caucus and assist in the debate, and then appear in this Chamber only
with the bands of the caucus upon his hands?
Nor is the duty changed by the time of the protest. Vote or no vote
makes no difference. No caucus could constrain a Senator on such a
question. It was our duty to stay and resist the offensive proposition
to the last, and then afterward resist it elsewhere. Senators, if they
choose, may take it in their hands and bear it into this Chamber, to
enshrine it in the rules of the Senate. If placed there, I know it will
do no good; it will stay there to the dishonor of the country, and as a
bad precedent for the future.
Mr. Howe spoke again, beginning his remarks as follows: “I am
not so familiar with the history of this country as I wish I
was. I do not know whether it has ever happened hitherto in
the history of the country that a Senator has been arraigned
before the Senate for a violation of a duty to a partisan
caucus. If there ever has been such a trial before, I hope
there never will be such a trial again.” Mr. Yates concluded by
saying: “Now, Sir, there is one of two things, and it commences
this day: that the decisions of such consultations have to be
carried out, or this day begins the death of any consultations
by the majority in the Senate.” Mr. Sumner followed.
MR. PRESIDENT,--It is evident that this debate has opened a broader
question than was imagined at first. Doctors disagree. The learned
Senator from Illinois differs from the learned Senator from Maine. One
expounds the caucus obligations in one way, and the other in another.
Now I am clear that this debate ought not to be closed without some
defined code of caucus, and it seems to me that the learned Senators,
so swift in judgment, ought to supply this code. It should be reduced
to a text. We should know to what extent one is bound, and to what
extent not bound: whether the Senator from Illinois, who refuses to be
bound by the caucus in one point, which was fully discussed, is a man
of honor; whether another Senator, who refuses to be bound on other
points, is a man of honor. That question could be settled by some
explicit code: for we have been admonished that we cannot differ from
the caucus without a departure from propriety, if not from duty; and I
do not know that stronger language has not been employed. If it has, I
will not quote it. It seems to me that this should lead to a practical
conclusion, and it is this: to have nothing to do with a proposition
which can be discussed only through such avenues, which requires such
refinement of detail, with regard to which the Senator from Illinois
makes one exception, and other Senators other exceptions, and to which
still other Senators entirely object.
Now I am not going to complain of the Senator from Illinois. In
following his convictions he is doing right; but then I wish him to
understand that others on this floor may have the privilege he claims
for himself,--justly claims; it is his title. I recognize the Senator
as a man of honor, though he does refuse to carry out the decrees of
the caucus. I believe that every Senator here has responsibilities as
a Senator which are above any he can have to a caucus, which is only
a meeting of friends for consultation and for harmony, where each
gives up something with a view to a common result, but no man gives
up a principle, no man gives up anything vital. No Senator can expect
another Senator to give up anything vital; no Senator can expect
another Senator to sacrifice a principle. I will not imagine that any
Senator would sacrifice a principle. If a Senator expects another to
accord with him in the conclusions of a caucus, I know well it is
because he does not see it in the light of principle; but if another
Senator does see it in the light of principle, how can he be expected
to act otherwise than according to his light? It is not given to all to
see with the clearness of the caucus-defenders. Theirs is the pathway
of light; they see the obligation as complete. Others cannot see it
so. I am in that list. I cannot see it as a final obligation. I have
been present in many caucuses, and I believe, looking over the past, I
have harmonized reasonably with my associates. Sometimes I have been
constrained to differ, and have expressed that difference, and it has
generally been received with kindness. The other day I expressed the
same difference, little expecting, however, an arraignment on this
floor.
Here followed a conversation, in which Mr. Sumner, Mr. Yates,
Mr. Howe, Mr. Grimes, of Iowa, and Mr. Thayer, of Nebraska,
took part. Mr. Yates was willing to except from the resolution
necessary legislation on the Western frontiers. Mr. Sumner
continued:--
Now I submit to my excellent friend, whether his conclusion does not
entirely impair the value of the caucus conclusion, except to this
extent, in which we all agree, that it is an expression of the opinion
of political associates, calculated to exercise a strong influence on
the course of public business, and to be received with respect, but not
to be imposed upon this Chamber as a rule.
MR. YATES. Allow me to ask the Senator whether he did
not submit himself to the same sort of decision in the
Reconstruction measures. Those matters were before a caucus,
and acted upon.
MR. SUMNER. In the caucus on Reconstruction I moved the amendment that
in the future constitutions of the Rebel States the ballot should be
required. A division was had. I allude to it now because interrogated
openly in the Senate. A division was had, and there were two stand-up
votes, when the motion was carried by a vote of 15 to 13. By 15 to 13
in that caucus it was voted to require suffrage for all in the future
constitutions of the Rebel States.
MR. EDMUNDS. And what would you have thought, if the thirteen
had repudiated that action?
MR. SUMNER. To repudiate a proposition in favor of human liberty would
have been a very different thing from repudiating a proposition
against human liberty.
MR. FESSENDEN. When the question is put to the Senator, what he
would have thought, if the thirteen had repudiated it, he says
that is a very different thing, being in favor of liberty.
MR. SUMNER. Very well, does not the Senator say the same?
MR. FESSENDEN. I say there is no difference, where a man
promises to do a thing with a full understanding; he has no
right to violate it, whether it is one way or the other.
MR. SUMNER. The question is, whether the man does promise. There is the
point.
MR. FESSENDEN. Very well, then, my reply is, that, if there was
no promise in the case of the thirteen to support the decision,
there is no promise here; if there was a promise in the case
of the thirteen to be bound by it and support it, as they
did, then there was a promise here. The Senator may make the
distinction, if he can.
MR. SUMNER. I will make the distinction clear. I have never said there
was a promise in the case of the thirteen, as I insist there was no
promise in the recent caucus. Had the Senator felt it his duty to come
into the Senate and oppose the report, I should have been pained to
find him on the side of wrong; but I am not ready to say that he would
have been constrained by the caucus. But, plainly, the repudiation of
a caucus vote for Human Rights is to be judged differently from the
repudiation of a caucus vote adverse to Human Rights,--assuming, as I
do, that there is no promise in either case.
…
Sir, I am tired of this talk of honor, in connection with the public
business. This is too solemn; we are under too great responsibilities.
Every Senator acts with honor. The Senator from Maine acts with honor,
when he seeks to impose a rule which I think offensive to the spirit
of the Constitution. The Senator from Illinois acts with honor, when
he says that he will not be bound by the vote of this caucus in a
particular case. Other Senators act with honor, when they refuse to be
bound by the resolution in any of its terms. Every Senator acts with
honor. He only acts otherwise who makes injurious imputations upon his
associates.
Yes, Sir, let us have this caucus code. If it is to be administered
with such severity, let us know it in advance, its terms and its
conditions,--what extent of dishonor is to be visited upon those who
do not adopt the caucus conclusions, and what extent of honor upon
those who so steadfastly and violently carry them forward. Let us have
the code. I believe, Sir, that the true code for the Senate is found
in the National Constitution, in the rules of this body, and in the
sentiments of right and wrong which animate every honest soul; and I
believe that no advantage can be taken of any Senator by reminding him
that he forbore at a particular moment to register his objection, just
as if we were all there on trial, to be saved by speaking promptly.
It was no such debate; we were there with friends and brothers, each
respecting the sensibilities and convictions of his associates, and, by
interchange of opinions, seeking harmony, but not submitting to a yoke.
After further remarks from Mr. Fessenden and Mr. Tipton, the
substitute of Mr. Ross was rejected,--Yeas 15, Nays 19. The
resolution, was then adopted,--Yeas 23, Nays 9.
* * * * *
July 10th, Mr. Sumner called up the following, introduced by
him July 8th:--
“_Resolved_, That the resolution of the Senate, adopted the
5th of July last, limiting the business of the Senate, be,
and hereby is, rescinded.”
In remarks that followed, he showed the character of the
proceedings in the Twenty-Seventh Congress, which had been
adduced as a precedent for the limitation of business. In reply
to Mr. Fessenden, he said:--
I have simply done my duty, in calling attention to the past precedent
which had been introduced into the discussion. When it was introduced
by the Senator from Maine, I had no means of replying to it. I had not
the Journal or the Globe with me, and I supposed, from the statement
of the Senator, that it was a resolution practically adopted in this
Chamber. I was not aware of what followed. I was not aware of the
extent to which the whole spirit of the proposition was denounced. Nor
was I aware that its original mover, Mr. Clay, was obliged to abandon
his proposition,--that he magnanimously, justly, and considerately
abandoned it. That is the true precedent in this body; and that is the
precedent which, I submit, it would be better for the Senate to follow.
Nothing, surely, could be lost by following it.
The resolution adopted by the Senate on Friday, while it remains, will
only be of evil example. If hereafter quoted as a precedent, it may be
at last for some purpose of oppression, when Senators will not all be
as just as those I now have the honor of addressing. It may be seized
then as an engine of tyranny. For one, Sir, I would leave no such
weapon in this Chamber to be grasped hereafter by any hand.
The Senate refused to take up the resolution.
* * * * *
July 13th, Mr. Sumner made another attempt by the following
resolution:--
“_Resolved_, That the rule of the Senate limiting business
be suspended, so far as to allow the consideration of
the bill (S. No. 124) to enforce the several provisions
of the Constitution abolishing Slavery, declaring the
immunities of citizens, and guarantying a republican form
of government by securing the elective franchise to colored
citizens.”
But he was not able to obtain a vote upon it, and the important
bill was left on the table.