HOMESTEADS FOR FREEDMEN.

Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, differed from Mr. Sumner, and entered his “protest against any such construction of the Constitution as denies to the two Houses of Congress the right to regulate their own adjournments.” After quoting the text of the Constitution, that “a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members,” Mr. Sumner said:—

Here is a concurrent resolution providing for a future meeting of Congress. To that extent it is unquestionably constitutional; but when the resolution imposes shackles upon the two Houses of Congress assembled by virtue of that resolution, then, I submit, it does what, under the National Constitution, it cannot do,—its words are powerless. Congress, when once assembled by virtue of that resolution, has all the powers of a Congress of the United States under the Constitution. That resolution cannot restrain it. Such, at any rate, is my conclusion, after the best reflection that I have been able to give to these words of the Constitution; and I feel it my duty to make this protest, to the end that what we now do may not be drawn into an example hereafter. It is well known that those words were introduced in order to tie the hands of Congress, should it come together and there be no quorum present,—in short, to despoil the Congress then assembled of the prerogative secured to it by the National Constitution. To thatextent I suggest that the resolution hereafter shall be regarded as of no value, and not be quoted as a precedent.

After reply from Mr. Trumbull, the subject was dropped.

Resolution in the Senate, July 3, 1867.

RESOLVED, That the reconstruction of the Rebel States would be hastened, and the best interest of the country promoted, if the President of the United States, in the exercise of the pardoning power, would require that every landed proprietor who has been engaged in the Rebellion, before receiving pardon therefor, should convey to the freedmen, his former slaves, a certain portion of the land on which they have worked, so that they may have a homestead in which their own labor has mingled, and that the disloyal master may not continue to appropriate to himself the fruits of their toil.

On motion of Mr. Sumner, this was printed and laid on the table. The rule limiting business during the present session prevented him from calling it up.

Speeches in the Senate, July 3, 5, and 10, 1867.

Mr. Sumner had looked to this session not only for precautions against the President, but for legislation on Suffrage. He had never doubted that there would be a session. March 30th, just before the final adjournment, he gave notice that on the first Wednesday of July he should ask the Senate to proceed with his bill to secure the elective franchise to colored citizens, when Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, said, “The Senator had better add, ‘or some subsequent day.’” [Laughter.] Mr. Sumner said: “I beg the Senate to take notice that there will be a session on the first Wednesday of July, to proceed with business. I have reason to believe that there will be a quorum here, for there will be important public business that must be attended to.”On the completion of the organization, Mr. Sumner proceeded to offer petitions, when he was interrupted by Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, who said: “I desire to interpose an objection to the reference of these petitions; and I may as well bring the question up here now, before the Senator offers any more. I do it for the reason that in my judgment it is not expedient at the present session to act upon general business”; and he referred to the course at the session of the Twenty-Seventh Congress, called by President Harrison. Mr. Sumner said, in reply:—

On the completion of the organization, Mr. Sumner proceeded to offer petitions, when he was interrupted by Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, who said: “I desire to interpose an objection to the reference of these petitions; and I may as well bring the question up here now, before the Senator offers any more. I do it for the reason that in my judgment it is not expedient at the present session to act upon general business”; and he referred to the course at the session of the Twenty-Seventh Congress, called by President Harrison. Mr. Sumner said, in reply:—

MR. PRESIDENT,—We are a Congress of the United States, assembled under the National Constitution, and with all the powers belonging to Congress,—ay, Sir, and with all the responsibilities also. We cannot, by agreement or understanding, divest ourselves of theseresponsibilities, being nothing less than to transact the public business,—not simply one item or two items, but the public business in its sum total, whatever it may be,—in one word, all that concerns the welfare of this great Republic. Now the Senator limits us to one item, which he has only alluded to, without characterizing. I suppose I understand him; but he must know well that even that business has many ramifications. But why are we to be restricted thus? Looking at past usage, I need not remind you that we have habitually sat throughout the summer into the month of August, and on one occasion into the month of September. It is no new thing that Congress should be here in July. It is an exception that Congress is not here in July, during every alternate year. Therefore, in considering public business, even under these heats, we are only doing what our predecessors before us have done; we are following the usage of Congress, and not setting up a new usage of our own. The motion of the Senator, if it be a motion, or rather his suggestion, does set up a new usage. It is virtually to declare, that, when admonished by the heats of July, we will fold our hands, and will not even consider public business, except in one particular case; that all the other vast interests of this country will be left, without reference to a committee, without inquiry, unattended to, neglected.

The Senator from Maine says, that, when Congress adjourned at the end of March, it was not supposed that there would be a session at this time. He may not have supposed there would be a session. I never doubted that there would be one. I saw full well that the public interests would require a session in July, and I labored to bring it about, feeling that in so doing I wasonly discharging a public duty. Do you forget whom you have as President? A constant disturber, and a mischief-maker. So long as his administration continues, it is the duty of Congress to be on guard, perpetually on watch against him; and this must have been obvious when Congress adjourned, as it is obvious now. Senators may not have foreseen precisely what he would do; but I take it that there were few who did not foresee that he would do something making it important for Congress to be present. I did not doubt, then, that it would be our duty to be here in our places to make adequate provision against his misdeeds. He is President, and the head of the Executive, invested with all the powers belonging to that department. It is hard, I know, to provide against him; but nevertheless you must do it. This Republic is too great, too vast, and too precious, to be left in the hands of a bad man.

One of the greatest masters in the art of war tells us, as the lesson of his great military experience, that the good general always regards that as probable which is possible. I know no better rule for the statesman. Now, with a President such as we have, anything in the nature of disturbance or interference with the public security is possible through the Executive arm. Therefore you are to regard it as probable, and make provision against it. So I argued last spring, and was satisfied that it would be our duty to be in our seats at the coming July. We are here, and I now insist that it is our duty to go forward and discharge all our duties, without exception, under the National Constitution.

Mr. Fessenden replied, referring to the proceedings at the called session of the Twenty-Seventh Congress on resolutions of Mr. Clay to limit business. Mr. Sumner rejoined:—

I hope the Senate will pardon me, if I add one word to what I have already said. The Senator from Maine introduces as a precedent something which he will pardon me if I say is not a precedent. He calls our attention to a session of Congress convened by virtue of a summons of the President, being a called session. Why, Sir, this is no called session. This is simply a continuing session, begun on the 4th day of March. It is not a new session. It is a session already begun, prolonged by adjournment into the midst of July. Were it such a session as the Senator from Maine seems to imagine, his precedent might be applicable. We might then search the message of the President to find the subjects proper for consideration. It is, however, no such session. We are here broadly, under all our powers as a Congress, our life as a Congress having begun here on the 4th day of March at noon. Therefore, allow me to say, the precedent is inapplicable.

The practical question, then, is, What shall we do, being a Congress assembled as any other Congress, with all powers and all duties? I submit, proceed with the public business in due order, until such time as by the reports of committees or by votes of the two bodies we shall be satisfied that it is not advisable to proceed further. I think, therefore, petitions should be presented and referred, bills introduced and take their proper destinations, and business of all kinds be brought before the Senate.

At the suggestion of Senators, the petitions were laid on the table to await formal action on the question.July 5th, Mr. Anthony, of Rhode Island, moved the following resolution, which had been agreed upon in a caucus of Republican Senators:—“Resolved, That the legislative business of this session be confined 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 heretofore adopted by Congress, and to giving to said Acts the scope intended by Congress when the same were passed; and that further legislation, at this session, on the subject of Reconstruction, or on other subjects, is not expedient.”Mr. Sumner at once appealed to Mr. Anthony:—

At the suggestion of Senators, the petitions were laid on the table to await formal action on the question.

July 5th, Mr. Anthony, of Rhode Island, moved the following resolution, which had been agreed upon in a caucus of Republican Senators:—

“Resolved, That the legislative business of this session be confined 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 heretofore adopted by Congress, and to giving to said Acts the scope intended by Congress when the same were passed; and that further legislation, at this session, on the subject of Reconstruction, or on other subjects, is not expedient.”

Mr. Sumner at once appealed to Mr. Anthony:—

Before a resolution of such importance, so open to criticism, so doubtful in point of order, so plainly contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, is brought under consideration, I do think that the Senator who brings it forward should enlighten us in regard to its object, and the reasons in justification of so extraordinary a proposition.

Mr. Anthony made a brief statement, in which he said that he “supposed the reason for this proposition was so evident to every Senator who has conversed with the members of the body, that it would require no explanation whatever”; that “the public sentiment of the country demanded that there should be some legislation in order to make the Reconstruction Acts precisely what we intended them to be, and not as they have been construed.” Mr. Sumner then moved the following substitute:—“That the Senate will proceed, under its rules, to the despatch of the public business requiring attention, and to this end all petitions and bills will be referred for consideration to the appropriate committees, without undertaking in advance to limit the action of Congress to any special subject, and to deny a hearing on all other subjects.”He then remarked:—

“That the Senate will proceed, under its rules, to the despatch of the public business requiring attention, and to this end all petitions and bills will be referred for consideration to the appropriate committees, without undertaking in advance to limit the action of Congress to any special subject, and to deny a hearing on all other subjects.”

He then remarked:—

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 otherday 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 justlyoffensive, 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. 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 interestever 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 understoodthat 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 anddwarfs 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 characterwas 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 originalresolution 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. 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 originalresolution 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 pardonthem, 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 legislationof 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 asacro-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 Senatorsuggested 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 doingit.” 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, withregard 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. Theother 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.

Back to Index Next