Mr. Sumner said:--

I take it that the policy of prize-money is always open to question. It

has been handed down from other generations, but I cannot doubt, that,

in proportion as nations advance in civilization and refinement, it is

more and more drawn into doubt.

MR. GRIMES. I will ask the Senator, whether, under the law as

it now exists, our officers and sailors have not certain vested

rights? This bill is retrospective, as well as prospective.

MR. SUMNER. But these vested rights, according to existing law, are

acquired in war with foreign enemies. And here is the precise point of

principle. Certain property of fellow-citizens is taken, not by foreign

enemies, but by rebels, and afterwards it is retaken. Several vessels

are in this predicament. Even if the recapture were from a foreign

enemy, English and American statutes treat it as a case of salvage, and

not of prize. But the claim now made involves nothing less than the

extension of the ancient rule of war to a new class. I am against such

extension. I would have no amplification of such a rule.

I am disposed to go still further, and to reconsider the whole

policy of prize-money in any case. Even if not ready for this larger

question, the Senate will not hesitate to apply the limitation now

proposed. Besides the hardship of prize-money at the expense of our

own fellow-citizens, there is the uncivilized character of the whole

system, which should make us pause.

The bill was passed,--Yeas 25, Nays 12.

Charles Sumner: his complete works, volume 09 (of 20) · 第 60 / 133 题