THE CASE OF FRANK B. SANBORN, OF CONCORD, MASSACHUSETTS, WITH SPEECHES
IN THE SENATE, APRIL 10, 13, AND 16, 1860.
The case of Mr. Sanborn illustrates the reach of the Slave
Power, and the extent to which the Senate did its bidding, at
the instance of the author of the Fugitive Slave Bill. It is
one of the skirmishes in the warfare with Slavery.
April 10, 1860, Mr. Sumner presented the memorial of Mr.
Sanborn, which he explained as follows.
I have a memorial, Mr. President, from Frank B. Sanborn, of Concord,
Massachusetts, setting forth a gross attempt to kidnap, by men
pretending to act in the name of the Senate of the United States. The
memorial is authenticated by his affidavit before a notary public. It
sets forth, that, on the evening of the 3d of April, certain persons,
who had been prowling about his neighborhood, under shelter of night,
with fraudulent pretence drew him to his door, seized him, handcuffed
him, and then by force undertook to convey him to a carriage. By the
courageous interposition of a refined lady, his sister, neighbors were
aroused; the village was next summoned by the ringing of bells, and at
length that great friend of the oppressed in our country, the writ of
_Habeas Corpus_, arrived on the ground. By intervention of that writ he
was taken from the custody of the kidnappers. The next day a hearing
was had before the Supreme Court of Massachusetts; and Chief Justice
Shaw, for thirty years the honored Chief Justice of Massachusetts,
whose opinions are respected in every part of the country, representing
the full bench, without undertaking to pass upon the question of
jurisdiction in the Senate, went on to declare that the power delegated
to its Sergeant-at-Arms could not be delegated to another, and that
therefore all these proceedings were void, and the prisoner was
discharged.
Now, Mr. President, this act, it seems to me, is conspicuous, both from
the person against whom it was directed and the place where it was
attempted. It was directed against Mr. Sanborn, a quiet citizen engaged
in the instruction of youth, a scholar of excellent attainments, of
perfect purity, and much beloved by friends and neighbors. It was
attempted at Concord, where another seizure was once attempted, which
began that revolutionary contest that ended in Independence. I affirm,
Mr. President, that a person like Mr. Sanborn, having suffered this
outrage at the hands of persons claiming to act in the name of the
Senate, has a right to redress in this body: and I assert, still
further, that this body owes something to its own character; it ought
to wash its hands of such an outrage. I offer his memorial, and ask its
reference to the Committee on the Judiciary, and, that the Senate may
better understand it, I think it ought to be printed. I move also its
printing.
Mr. Mason, of Virginia, Chairman of the Harper’s Ferry
Committee, made an explanation of the attempt to arrest Mr.
Sanborn, in the course of which he said: “This man Sanborn was
in correspondence either with the man who was not long since
hung in Virginia for his conduct as a traitor and murderer
at Harper’s Ferry, or with some of his associates, I do not
recollect which.” At the call of Mr. Fessenden the memorial was
read, when Mr. Sumner said, in reply to Mr. Mason:--
I merely wish to correct one error into which the Senator has fallen.
He states that Mr. Sanborn was taken from the custody of those
pretended officers by a mob. Now nothing is within my knowledge except
what is authenticated by that memorial under oath, and there the
statement is express that he was not taken from the custody of these
pretended officers except by the intervention of the writ of _Habeas
Corpus_, sustained by the _posse comitatus_ of the neighborhood.
Mr. Mason having stated that he expected a return of the
officer, at his suggestion the memorial was laid on the table
to await that return. To this Mr. Sumner consented, as he
declared, with great reluctance, and with the understanding
that then it should be referred.
April 13, 1860, Mr. Sumner presented additional papers in the
case. After reading these, he said:--
There, Sir, is the official response to the assertion of the Senator
from Virginia. The Senator says that Mr. Sanborn was rescued by a mob.
It is true there was a mob in Concord. It was a mob of kidnappers, who
went there in the name of the Senate of the United States to seize a
citizen of Massachusetts. I have here a letter which I have received
from a prominent citizen of Concord, present at the time. This is his
statement:--
“No rescue by the crowd was made or attempted, till the writ
of _Habeas Corpus_ was served; and this, even, Carleton and his
fellows resisted, till the deputy sheriff was obliged to use
force to take Mr. Sanborn from him.… The arrest was as brutal,
cowardly, and outrageous a proceeding as I ever knew in seven
years’ experience as sheriff of that county.”
Sir, it is not unnatural that an arrest made under such circumstances
should have attracted attention in that town and throughout
Massachusetts. It did so. It has excited a feeling of indignation
against this attempt, increased, perhaps, when people put the question,
“Why all this effort to seize Mr. Sanborn? Why this overthrow of law to
accomplish such a purpose?”
It is notorious that there is a citizen of Virginia, formerly chief
magistrate of that State, who has openly avowed that he knew much in
regard to the very matters in inquiry before that committee, and that
rubies could not bribe him to disclose it. He has thrown the challenge
down to that committee and this Senate, before the whole country,
refusing openly to testify; and yet that committee make no motion to
bring Ex-Governor Wise before the Senate, and compel him to testify.
Instead, the committee seeks a Northern man, Mr. Hyatt, now in jail,
and another Northern man, Mr. Sanborn, who it is well understood know
nothing of the matter; and it follows up Mr. Sanborn by an attempt
which I characterize here as simply an act of kidnapping.
Mr. Mason, in reply, insisted, at some length, that Mr. Sumner
could have no information on the action of the committee, which
had not yet reported. To this Mr. Sumner rejoined:--
Mr. President, I profess to have no information except what is open to
all the world; and there are two things open to all the world, through
the public press: first, that the Ex-Governor of Virginia has more
than once declared that he had important information in reference to
the matter before the committee, and that rubies would not tempt him
to disclose it; and, secondly, it is known that the Ex-Governor of
Virginia has not been brought to Washington, as Mr. Hyatt has been, and
as an attempt has been made to bring Mr. Sanborn. No kidnappers have
been sent into Virginia, nor handcuffs put upon Ex-Governor Wise.
April 16, 1860, Mr. Mason presented to the Senate the warrant
for the arrest of Mr. Sanborn, with the return of the Deputy
Marshal of Massachusetts to whom it was addressed, and
moved its reference to the Committee on the Judiciary, with
instructions to inquire and report whether any, and what,
further proceedings were necessary to vindicate the authority
of the Senate and to effect the arrest of the witnesses. This
motion was agreed to. Mr. Sumner then moved that the memorial
of Mr. Sanborn, with the additional papers, be taken from
the table and referred to the same committee. Here Mr. Mason
promptly interposed the very unusual motion _that the memorial
be rejected_. The Chair decided that the motion “to reject”
could not take precedence, and therefore the motion to refer
was first in order. Then it was that Mr. Sumner spoke as
follows.
Mr. President, I think that I ought not to listen to such a proposition
as has been made by the Senator from Virginia with reference to
this memorial, without one word in reply. Here is a memorial from a
gentleman of perfect respectability, charged with no crime, presumed
to be innocent, complaining of gross outrage at the hands of certain
persons pretending to act in the name of the Senate. The facts are duly
set forth. They are authenticated also by documents now of record. The
Senator moves--without any reference to a committee, without giving
the petition the decency of a hearing, according to the ordinary forms
of this body--that the memorial be “rejected”; and he makes this
unaccustomed motion with a view to establish a precedent in such a
case. I feel it my duty to establish a precedent also in this case,
by entering an open, unequivocal protest against such attempt. Sir,
an ancient poet said of a judge in hell, that he punished first and
heard afterwards,--“_castigatque auditque_”; and, permit me to say, the
Senator from Virginia, on this occasion, takes a precedent from that
court.
To this protest Mr. Mason replied: “The Senator from
Massachusetts, it seems to me, makes an opportunity to use
language in the Senate Chamber which, so far as my intercourse
with the world goes, is not usual out of the Senate Chamber.
There is nothing in it that I have a right to take as
personally offensive to myself. The Senate is the proper judge
and arbiter of the decorum of its own proceedings.”
Then ensued a debate on the return, in which Mr. Bayard, of
Delaware, and Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, took part, when Mr.
Sumner, at last obtaining the floor, remarked as follows.
Only one word. I presented a memorial to this body, setting forth
an outrage. The Senator from Virginia moved its rejection, while he
proposed that the case should be proceeded with. I characterized that
motion as I thought I was authorized to do, referring to a precedent
of antiquity, and that was all; and this is the occasion for a lecture
from the Senator on the manner in which one should conduct on this
floor. From the heights of his self-confidence he addresses me. Sir, I
wish to say simply, in reply, that, when an outrage comes before this
body, I shall denounce it in plain terms; and if a precedent from a
very bad place seems to be in point, I shall not hesitate to quote it.
Mr. Mason rejoined: “I did not undertake to lecture the
Senator, of all others, upon the subject of manners or
propriety. I do not mean it offensively, but, for my own
convenience, I should consider it time thrown away. All that I
said was, that I was not accustomed, in my intercourse with the
world outside of this Chamber, to hear language of that sort in
the circles in which I move.”
April 17, 1860, the memorial of Mr. Sanborn was referred to the
Judiciary Committee, according to the motion of Mr. Sumner.
June 7, Mr. Bayard, of Delaware, from the Committee on
the Judiciary, to whom was referred the return of the
Deputy-Marshal and the other papers, reported a “Bill
concerning the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate and the
Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Representatives,” authorizing
the appointment of deputies. This was intended to meet the
decision of Chief Justice Shaw, of Massachusetts.[23]
June 15, Mr. Bayard moved to proceed with the consideration
of his bill. The motion was not agreed to,--there being, on a
division, ayes 22, noes 25. This was the end of that bill.
* * * * *
This incident was much noticed by the Northern press,
especially in Massachusetts. The Boston _Atlas and Bee_
expressed itself thus:--
“In our opinion the people of the Free States are never
better satisfied with their representatives than when they
see them repelling indignantly and manfully the arrogant
insults of the slave-driving aristocracy. It will not
diminish their attachment to Mr. Sumner, when they take
notice that his rebuke of Mr. Mason was not in reply to
any insult upon himself, but upon one of his outraged and
abused constituents.”