I do not pretend to an opinion on the genuineness of the letter. Like
the Senator from Delaware, I have seen it in several newspapers, and
my attention has been specially called to it by correspondents in
Missouri, who write that its genuineness cannot be doubted. But this is
a question for the Committee.
If I understand the Senator, his argument against the genuineness
of the letter is founded on a phrase which he thinks Trusten Polk
could never have written: it is a phrase of doubtful style or taste,
showing bad associations. I am not familiar enough with Trusten Polk
to sit in judgment on his style, nor is the Senate called to any such
responsibility; but we are to sit in judgment on his public conduct,
and if the letter is not a forgery, there can be no question as to our
duty.
Believing the inquiry important, not doubting the duty of the Senate
to purge itself of traitors who have too long found sanctuary in its
Chamber, and satisfied that the country justly expects this to be done,
I have felt bound to introduce the resolution.
But there is more than the letter. The Senate has heard within a few
days that this person has found his way to Memphis. Why is he at
Memphis, when he should be at Washington?
Some time afterwards Mr. Sumner received from Missouri the very
letter, in the undoubted autograph of Mr. Polk, and with the
phrase which it was insisted he could not have written.
January 9, 1862, Mr. Ten Eyck, of New Jersey, reported
the resolution from the Committee, with the unanimous
recommendation that it pass.
January 10, the resolution was adopted without debate: Yeas,
36; Nays, 0.