“Again I am reminded that it is best to try to get rid of
the imposing Senator [Mr. SUMNER] on that subject, just
as the lady answered her admirer. The suitor had been
importuning her time and again, and she had invariably
declined to accept the proposition. At length, however,
being very much annoyed, she concluded to say ‘yes,’
just to get rid of his importunity. I want to go with
the Senator to get rid of this matter, [_laughter_,]
because, really, Mr. President, we find his bill here as
a breakwater. A concurrent resolution was introduced here
for the adjournment of Congress at a particular day. Well,
you saw that bill thrust right on it. ‘Stop!’ says he, ‘you
must not adjourn until my bill is passed.’ There it was
again; here it is now; and we shall continue to have it;
and I am for making peace with it by a general surrender at
once. [_Laughter._] I stop not there, Mr. President; I go
further, and I indorse the Senator to the utmost degree in
his proposition.”[221]
Mr. Morrill, in an elaborate argument, denied point-blank the
constitutionality of the bill,--insisting, and repeating with
different forms of expression, that “the exercise of this power
on the part of Congress would be a palpable invasion of the
rights of the people of the States in their purely domestic
relations.… This Constitution has given us no such authority
and no such power.”[222]
January 31st, Mr. Sumner replied to Mr. Morrill.