Charles Sumner : his complete works

.

x01

t>\

^

%M.\

FREDERICK DOUGLASS

>tatc0man C'Oition VOL. XIX

Charles Sumner

HIS COMPLETE WORKS

ittf) Entrotiucttott

BY

HON. GEORGE FRISBIE HOAR

BOSTON
LEE AND SHEPARD

MCM

59371

COPYRIGHT, 1882,

BY

FRANCIS V. BALCH, EXECUTOR.

COPYRIGHT, 1900,

BY
LEE AND SHEPARD.

Statesman lEtutian.

LIMITED TO ONE THOUSAND COPIES.
OF WHICH THIS is

Wo.

Kortoooti
NORWOOD, MASS., U.S.A.

e

59x5
v, I 9

CONTENTS OF VOLUME XIX.

PAGE

COLORED SCHOOLS IN WASHINGTON. Speech in the Senate,
February 8, 1871 . . . . ...

HON. JOHN COVODE, LATE REPRESENTATIVE OP PENNSYL-
VANIA. Speech in the Senate, on his Death, February
10, 1871 12

ITALIAN UNITY AGAIN. Letter to a Public Meeting at Pitts-
burg, Pennsylvania, February 21, 1871 .... 15

VIOLATIONS OP INTERNATIONAL LAW, AND USURPATIONS OP
WAR POWERS. Speech in the Senate, on his San Do-
mingo Resolutions, March 27, 1871 16

PERSONAL RELATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY
OF STATE. AN EXPLANATION IN REPLY TO AN ASSAULT.
Statement prepared for Presentation to the Senate,
March, 1871 . . . . . . . .99

THE KU-KLUX-KLAN. Speech in the Senate, on the Bill to
enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the Constitution, April 13, 1871 . ' . . . .125

OUB DUTY AGAINST WRONG. Letter to the Reform League,

New York, May 8, 1871 . . . . ' . . .131

POWER OP THE SENATE TO IMPRISON RECUSANT WITNESSES.

Speeches in the Senate, May 18 and 27, 1871 . . . 132

THE HAYTIAN MEDAL. Response to the Letter of Presenta-
tion, July 13, 1871 . . . . . . . .164

EQUALITY OP RIGHTS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. Letter to George
W. Walker, President of the Board of School Directors

of Jefferson, Texas, July 28, 1871 168

ill

1Y CONTENTS.

PEACE AND THE REPUBLIC FOR FRANCE. Remarks in Music
Hall, Boston, introducing M. Athanase Coquerel, of
Paris, October 9, 1871 159

THE GREAT FIRE AT CHICAGO, AND OUR DUTY. Speech at
Faneuil Hall, at a Meeting for the lielief of Sufferers
at Chicago, October 10, 1871 161

RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF OUR COLORED FELLOW-CITIZENS.
Letter to the National Convention of Colored Citizens at
Columbia, South Carolina, October 12, 1871 . . .164

ONE TERM FOR PRESIDENT. Resolution and Remarks in the

Senate, December 21, 1871 168

THE BEST PORTRAITS IN ENGRAVING. Article in " The City,"

an Illustrated Magazine, New York, January 1, 1872 . 175

EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW PROTECTED BY NATIONAL
STATUTE. Speeches in the Senate, on his Supplemen-
tary Civil Rights Bill, as an Amendment to the Amnesty
Bill. January 15, 17, 31, February 5, and May 21, 1872 203

COLORED SCHOOLS IN WASHINGTON.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, FEBRUARY 8, 1871.

ON the motion of Mr. Patterson, of New Hampshire, Chairman of
the Committee on the District of Columbia, to strike out from a bill
relative to schools in the District the clause,

" And no distinction, on account of race, color, or previous condition of
servitude, shall be made in the admission of pupils to any of the schools
under the control of the Board of Education, or in the mode of education
or treatment of pupils in such schools,"

Mr. Sumner said :

MR. PRESIDENT, My friend, the Chairman of
the Committee, says that this proposition is cor-
rect in principle. But to my mind nothing is clearer
than that where anything is correct in principle it must
by inevitable law be correct in practice. Nobody here
makes this law, not the Senate, not Congress. By a
higher law than any from human power, whatever is
correct in principle must be correct in practice.

I stand on this rule. It is the teaching of all history ;
it is the teaching of human life; especially is it the
teaching of our national experience during these latter
eventful years. How often have propositions been op-
posed in this Chamber as correct in principle, but not
practical ! And how often what was correct in princi-
ple triumphed over eveiy obstacle ! When the proposi-
tion for the abolition of Slavery in the District was

VOL. XIX. 1

2 COLOKED SCHOOLS IN WASHINGTON.

brought forward, we were told that it was correct in
principle, but that it would not work well, that it
was not practical ! So when the proposition was
brought forward to give the colored people the right
to testify in court, we were assured that it was correct
in principle, but that it would not be practical.

The same objection was made to the proposition that
colored people should ride in the horse-cars ; and I was
gravely told that white people would not use the cars,
if they were opened to colored people. The proposition
prevailed, and you and others know whether any injury
therefrom has been done to the cars.

Then, again, when it was proposed to give the ballot
to all, it was announced that it might be correct in
principle, but that it was not practical ; and I, Sir, was
seriously assured by an eminent citizen that it would
bring about massacre at the polls.

Now that it is proposed to apply the same principle
to the schools, we are again assured, with equal serious-
ness and gravity, that, though correct in principle, it is
not practical. Sir, I take issue on that general proposi-
tion. I insist that whatever is correct in principle is
practical. Anything else would make this world a fail-
ure, and obedience to the laws of God impossible.

The provision which my friend would strike out is
simply to carry into education the same principle which
we have carried into the court-room, into the horse-car,
and to the ballot-box : that is all. If there be any ar-
gument in favor of the provision in these other cases,
allow me to say that it is stronger in the school-room,
inasmuch as the child is more impressionable than the
man. You should not begin life with a rule that sanc-
tions a prejudice. Therefore do I insist, especially for

COLORED SCHOOLS IN WASHINGTON. 3

the sake of children, for the sake of those tender years
most susceptible to human influence, that we should
banish a rule which will make them grow up with a
separation which will be to them a burden: a burden
to the white; for every prejudice is a burden to him
who has it ; and a burden to the black, who will suffer
always under the degradation.

With what consistency can you deny to the child
equal rights in the school-room and then give him
equal rights at the ballot-box ? Having already ac-
corded equal rights at the ballot-box, I insist upon his
equal right in the school-room also. One is the com-
plement of the other. It is not enough to give him a
separate school, where he may have the same kind of
education with the white child. He will not have the
same kind of education. Every child, white or black,
has a right to be placed under precisely the same influ-
ences, with the same teachers, in the same school-room,
without any discrimination founded on his color. You
disown distinctions of sect: why keep up those of
color ?

A great protection to the colored child, and a great
assurance of his education, will be that he is educated
on the same benches and by the same teachers with the
white child. You may give him what is sometimes
called an equivalent in another school ; but this is not
equality. His right is to equality, and not to equiva-
lency. He has equality only when he comes into your
common-school and finds no exclusion there on account
of his skin.

Strike out this provision, and you will say to the
children of this District : " There is a prejudice of col-
or which we sanction ; continue it ; grow up with it in

4 COLORED SCHOOLS IN WASHINGTON.

your souls." And worse still, the prejudice which you
sanction will extend from this centre over the whole
country. This is a centre, and not a corner. What we
do here will be an example in distant places.

My friend says that this provision will hurt the
schools. Pardon me ; he is mistaken. It will help the
schools. Everything that brings the schools into har-
mony with great principles and with divine truth must
help them. Anything that makes them antagonistic to
great principles and to divine truth hurts them. Strike
out this provision, and you hurt them seriously, vitally,
you stab them here in the house of their friends. In
a bill to promote education you deal it a fatal blow.

Sir, as I cherish education, as I love freedom, as at all
times I stand by human rights, so do I cherish, love, and
stand by this safeguard. It is worth the whole bill.
Strike it out, and the bill is too poor to be adopted. If
it should be passed, thus shorn, I say it, Sir, because
I must say it, it will bring disgrace upon Congress.

To the colored people here we owe, certainly, equal-
ity; we owe to them the practical recognition of the
promises of the Declaration of Independence ; and still
further, we must see that the common schools of this
District are an example throughout the country. We
cannot afford to do less. Everywhere throughout the
region lately cursed by Slavery this dark prejudice still
lingers and lowers. From our vantage-ground here we
must strike it, and, according to our power, destroy it.
But if the proposition of my friend prevails, you will
encourage and foster it.

Now, Sir, against the statement of my friend, the
Chairman, I oppose the statement of experts, I op-
pose a statement which, I venture to say here, cannot

COLORED SCHOOLS IN WASHINGTON. 5

"be answered. It is not my statement. I should not
venture to say anything like that of anything that I
said. I oppose a Keport made by the Trustees of the
Colored Schools in Washington, and I ask the attention
of the Senate to what I read. It is a Keport made to
the Secretary of the Interior, December 31, 1870, and
communicated to the Senate by the Secretary, January
18, 1871. 1 Under the head of "Need of Additional
Legislation" the Trustees of the Colored Schools ex-
press themselves as follows :

" It is our judgment that the best interests of the colored
people of this capital, and not theirs alone, but those of all
classes, require the abrogation of all laws and institutions
creating or tending to perpetuate distinctions based on color,
and the enactment in their stead of such provisions as shall
secure equal privileges to all classes of citizens. The laws
creating the present system of separate schools for colored
children in this District were enacted as a temporary expedi-
ent to meet a condition of things which has now passed
away." 2

How wise is that remark! These are colored men
who wrote this. They say:

" The laws creating the present system of separate schools
for colored children in this District were enacted as a tempo-
rary expedient to meet a condition of things which has now
passed away."

That condition of things was a part of the legacy of
Slavery. They then proceed:

" That they recognize and tend to perpetuate a cruel, un-
reasonable, and unchristian prejudice, which has been and is

k

1 Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 20.
a Ibid., p. 7.

6 COLORED SCHOOLS IN WASHINGTON.

the source of untold wrong and injustice to that class of the
community which we represent, is ample reason for their
modification. The experience of this community for the last
few years has fully demonstrated that the association of dif-
ferent races, in their daily occupations and civic duties, is as
consistent with the general convenience as it is with justice.
And custom is now fully reconciled at this capital to the
seating side by side of white and colored people in the rail-
way car, the jury-box, the municipal and Government offices,
in the city councils, and even in the Halls of the two Houses
of Congress. Yet, while the fathers may sit together in those
high places of honor and trust, the children are required by
law to be educated apart. We see neither reason nor justice
in this discrimination. If the fathers are fit to associate, why
are not the children equally so ? " 1

I should like my honorable friend, the Chairman, to
answer that question, when I have finished this Report :
" If the fathers are fit to associate, why are not the chil-
dren equally so ? " The Report then proceeds :

" Children, naturally, are not affected by this prejudice of
race or color. To educate them in separate schools tends to
beget and intensify it in their young minds, and so to per-
petuate it to future generations. If it is the intention of the
United States that these children shall become citizens in fact,
equal before the law with all others, why train them to recog-
nize these unjust and impolitic distinctions]" *

Here I would interpose the further inquiry, Why
will you make your school-house the nursery of preju-
dice inconsistent with the declared principles of your
institutions ? The Report proceeds :

" To do so is not only contrary to reason, but also to the

1 Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 20, p. 7.
Ibid.

COLORED SCHOOLS IN WASHINGTON. 7

injunction of Scripture, which says, ' Train up a child in the
way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart
from it.' " 1

And yet, could my friend prevail, he would train up
a child in the way he should not go ; but he would not,
I know, encourage him in this prejudice. The Report
proceeds :

" Objection to the step here recommended has been made
on the ground of expediency. Every advanced step in the
same direction has been opposed on the same superficial al-
legation.

"The right of the colored man to ride in the railway
cars, to cast the ballot, to sit on the jury, to hold office, and
even to bear arms in defence of his country, has encountered
the same objection. We are confident that it will prove of
no greater weight in the present case than it has in the
others. There is no argument for equality at the ballot-box,
in the cars, on the jury, in holding office and bearing arms,
which is not equally applicable in the present case. We
may go further, and insist that equality in the other cases
requires equality here ; otherwise the whole system is incom-
plete and inharmonious." 3

Now my friend, the Chairman, would make the sys-
tem incomplete and inharmonious. He would continue
here at the base that discord which he would be one of
the last to recognize in the higher stages. The Report
proceeds :

" It is worthy of note in this connection, that some of the
most distinguished men in literary, social, and political circles
in this section of the country have recently, in setting forth

i Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 20, p. 7.
Ibid.

8 COLORED SCHOOLS IN WASHINGTON.

their claims to be considered the best and truest friends of
the people of color, taken pains to inform the public that
they were reared with 'colored children, played with them in
the sports of childhood, and were even suckled by colored
nurses in infancy ; hence, that no prejudice against color ex-
ists on their part. If this be so, then with what show of
consistency or reason can they object to the children of both
classes sitting side by side in school?

" That the custom of separation on account of color must
disappear from our public schools, as it has from our halls of
justice and of legislation, we regard as but a question of time.
Whether this unjust, unreasonable, and unchristian discrimi-
nation against our children shall continue at the capital of
this great Republic is for the wisdom of Congress to deter-
mine.

""We deem it proper to add, that a bill now before the
honorable Senate, entitled ' A bill to secure equal rights in
the public schools of Washington and Georgetown,' (Senate,
No. 361, Forty-First Congress, Second Session,) reported to
that body May 6, 1870, by Mr. Senator Sumner, meets our
approbation. It is plain and simple, and prescribes the true
rule of equality for our schools. This bill is in the nature of
a ' corner-stone.' " *

This Report, so honorable to these Trustees, showing
that they have a true appreciation of principle, also of
what they owe to themselves and their race, and I trust
also a true appreciation of what they may justly expect
from Congress, concludes as follows :

" In conclusion, the Trustees suggest that those equal edu-
cational advantages to which all children are entitled, in ac-
cordance with the great principle of Equality before the Law,
can be obtained only through the common school, where all

1 Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 20, pp. 7-8.

COLORED SCHOOLS IN WASHINGTON. 9

children meet together in the enjoyment of the same oppor-
tunities, the same improvements, and the same instructions.
Whatever then is done for white children will be shared by
their colored brethren, and all shall enjoy the same care and
supervision." l

This is signed, "William Syphax, William H. A.
Wormley, Trustees of Colored .Schools."

There is then a Minority Keport, signed, "Charles
King, Trustee of Colored Schools of Washington and
Georgetown," dissenting in some respects from the Ma-
jority Keport, but coinciding with it absolutely on this
most important question. From the Minority Keport I
read as follows :

" In reference to schools of mixed races I think a differ-
ence of opinion may exist among the real friends of the col-
ored people ; but the time is rapidly approaching when this
discrimination must be obliterated all over our country, and
I know of no better locality in which to make a beginning
than in the District of Columbia, and no better time than
the present." 2

Sir, these are wise words. That is well put; what-
ever may be the difficulties elsewhere, they should not
be allowed to prevail here. This member of the Board
knows " no better locality in which to make a beginning
than in the District of Columbia, and no better time
than the present."

He then proceeds :

" Let all discrimination on account of color be avoided in
the public schools of Washington, let them be amply provid-
ed for in respect to funds and teachers, and a very few years
will see the example followed all over our free country. The

i Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 20, p. 10.
Ibid., p. 34.

10 COLORED SCHOOLS IN WASHINGTON.

colored race will feel the stimulating effects of direct competi-
tion with the white race, their ambition and self-respect will
grow under its influence and add dignity to their character,
and rapidly develop a style and type of manhood that must
place them on an equality with any of the other races of
men.

" We have seen this prejudice die out on the field of battle,
where white and colored have fought together for the same
flag. It has been met and conquered at the ballot-box and
in the halls of our local and general Legislatures, and why
should it not receive the same fate in our school-rooms ?
Why educate American youth in the idea that superiority
exists in the color of the skin, when our Declaration of In-
dependence, of which we boast so much, flatly contradicts
it]" 1

Now, Sir, I might well leave this whole question on
this remarkable statement by these colored Trustees.
They have spoken for themselves, for their race, and for
us. Who can speak better? I know not if anything
can be added to their Reports. I content myself with
one further word, concluding as I began.

The Senator from New Hampshire finds the principle
correct, but not practical To that I say, Try it. Try
the principle, and it will be found practical It will
work. Never was there any correct principle that would
not work. I know it is sometimes said that white pa-
rents would not send their children to the schools.
How long would that be ? One week, two weeks, one
month, two months. Some might do so possibly for a
brief time, just as for a brief time white persons refused
to enter the street cars when they were opened to col-
ored persons. It did not last long. According to my

l Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Seas., Senate, No. 20, pp. 34-35.

COLORED SCHOOLS IN WASHINGTON. 11

experience, men are not in the habit of biting off their
own noses for any very long time. Life is too short to
prolong this process; and I do not believe that the
people of the District of Columbia would reject for
their children the advantages of the common schools
simply because these schools were brought into har-
mony with the promises of the Declaration of Inde-
pendence.

HON. JOHN COVODE, LATE REPRESENTATIVE
OF PENNSYLVANIA.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON HIS DEATH,
FEBRUARY 10, 1871.

MR PRESIDENT, I venture to interpose a brief
word of sincere homage to the late JOHN CO-
VODE. I call him John Covode, for so I heard him
called always. Others are known by some title of hon-
or or office, but he was known only by the simple name
he bore. This familiar designation harmonized with his
unassuming life and character.

During his long service in Congress I was in the
Senate, so that I have been his contemporary. And
now that he has gone before me, I owe my testimony
to the simplicity, integrity, and patriotism of his public
life. Always simple, always honest, always patriotic,
he leaves a name which must be preserved in the his-
tory of Congress. In the long list of its members he
will stand forth with an individuality not to be forgot-
ten. How constantly and indefatigably he toiled the
records of the other House declare. He was a doer
rather than a speaker; but is not doing more than
speech, unless in those rare cases where a speech is an
act ? But his speech had a plainness not without effect,
especially before the people, where the facts and figures
which he presented with honest voice were eloquent.

HON. JOHN COVODE. 13

The Rebellion found this faithful Representative in
his place, and from the first moment to the last he gave
to its suppression time, inexhaustible energy, and that
infinite treasure, the life of a son. He was for the
most vigorous measures, whether in the field or in
statesmanship. Slavery had no sanctity for him, and
he insisted upon striking it. So also, when the Rebel-
lion was suppressed, he insisted always upon those Equal
Rights for All, without which the Declaration of Inde-
pendence is an unperformed promise, and our nation
a political bankrupt. In all these things he showed
character and became a practical leader. There is he-
roism elsewhere than on fields of battle, and he dis-
played it. He was a civic hero. And here the bitter-
ness which he encountered was the tribute to his
virtue.

In doing honor to this much-deserving servant, I
cannot err, if I add that nobody had more at heart the
welfare of the Republican Party, with which, in his
judgment, were associated the best interests of the Na-
tion. He felt, that, giving to his party, he gave to his
country and to mankind. His strong sense and the
completeness of his devotion to party made him stren-
uous always for those commanding principles by which
Humanity is advanced. Therefore was he for the unity
of the party, that it might be directed with all its force
for the good cause. Therefore was he against outside
and disturbing questions, calculated to distract and di-
vide. He saw the wrong they did to the party, and, in
the relation of cause and effect, to the country. And
here that frankness which was part of his nature be-
came a power. He was always frank, whether with the
people, with Congress, or with the President. I cannot

14 HON. JOHN COVODE.

forget his frankness with Abraham Lincoln, who, you
know, liked frankness. On more than one occasion, with
this good President his frankness conquered. Honorable
as was such a victory to the simple Kepresentative, it
was more honorable to the President.

His honest indignation at wrong was doubtless quick-
ened by the blood which coursed in his veins and the
story which it constantly whispered. He was descended
from one of those " Redemptioners," or indented ser-
vants, transported to Pennsylvania in the middle of the
last century, being a species of white slaves, among
whom was one of the signers of the Declaration of In-
dependence. The eminence which John Covode reached
attests the hospitality of our institutions, and shows
how character triumphs over difficulties. With noth-
ing but a common education, he improved his condition,
gained riches, enlarged his mind with wisdom, and won
the confidence of his fellow-citizens, until he became an
example.

The death of such a citizen makes a void, but it
leaves behind a life which in itself is a monument

ITALIAN UNITY AGAIN.

LETTER TO A PUBLIC MEETING AT PITTSBURG, PENNSYLVA-
NIA, FEBRUARY 21, 1871.

WASHINGTON, February 21, 1871.

DEAK SIR, I cannot be at your meeting, but
there will be none among you to rejoice in Ital-
ian Unity more than I do. Long has it been a desire
of my heart.

May it stand firm against all its enemies, especially
its greatest enemy, the temporal autocracy of the Pope !
Faithfully yours,

CHAELES SUMNEB.
FELIX K. BRUNOT, ESQ., Chairman.

VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, AND
USURPATIONS OF WAR POWERS.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON HIS SAN DOMINGO RESOLUTIONS,
MARCH 27, 1871.

THE official returns to Mr. Sumner's resolutions of December 9,
1870, and February 15, 1871, calling for the documents in the State
and Navy Departments relative to the case of San Domingo, 1 gave
occasion to the introduction by him, March 24, 1871, of a series of
resolutions, subsequently amended to read as follows :

Resolutions regarding the employment of the Navy of the United States
on the coasts of San Domingo during the pendency of negotiations for
the acquisition of part of that island.

Whereas any negotiation by one nation with a people inferior in popula-
tion and power, having in view the acquisition of territory, should be above
all suspicion of influence from superior force, and in testimony to this prin-
ciple Spain boasted that the reincorporation of Dominica with her mon-
archy in 1861 was accomplished without the presence of a single Spanish
ship on the coast or a Spanish soldier on the land, all of which appears
in official documents ; and whereas the United States, being a Republic
founded on the Rights of Man, cannot depart from such a principle and
such a precedent without weakening the obligations of justice between na-
tions and inflicting a blow upon Republican Institutions : Therefore,

1. Resolved, That in obedience to correct principle, and that Republican
Institutions may not suffer, the naval forces of the United States should be
withdrawn from the coasts of San Domingo during the pendency of negotia-
tions for the acquisition of any part of that island.

2. Resolved, That every sentiment of justice is disturbed by the employ-
ment of foreign force in the maintenance of a ruler engaged in selling his
country, and this moral repugnance is increased when it is known that the
attempted sale is in violation of the Constitution of the country to be sold ;
that, therefore, the employment of our Navy to maintain Baez in usurped
power while attempting to sell his country to the United States, in open

* See, ante, Vol. XVIII. pp. 259, 299.

SAN DOMINGO RESOLUTIONS. 17

violation of the Dominican Constitution, is morally wrong, and any trans-
action founded upon it must be null and void.

3. Resolved, That since the Equality of All Nations, without regard to
population, size, or power, is an axiom of International Law, as the Equal-
ity of All Men is an axiom of our Declaration of Independence, nothing
can be done to a small or weak nation that would not be done to a large
or powerful nation, or that we would not allow to be done to ourselves ;
and therefore any treatment of the Republic of Hayti by the Navy of the
United States inconsistent with this principle is an infraction of Interna-
tional Law in one of its great safeguards, and should be disavowed by the
Government of the United States.

4. Resolved, That since certain naval officers of the United States, com-
manding large war-ships, including the monitor Dictator and the frigate
Severn, with powerful armaments, acting under instructions from the Exec-
utive, and without the authority of an Act of Congress, have entered one or
more ports of the Republic of Hayti, a friendly nation, and under the men-
ace of open and instant war have coerced and restrained that republic in its
sovereignty and independence under International Law, therefore, in jus-
tice to the Republic of Hayti, also in recognition of its equal rights in the
Family of Nations, and in deference to the fundamental principles of our
institutions, these hostile acts should be disavowed by the Government of
the United States.

5. Resolved, That tinder the Constitution of the United States the power
to declare war is placed under the safeguard of an Act of Congress ; that
the President alone cannot declare war ; that this is a peculiar principle of
our Government by which it is distinguished from monarchical Govern-
ments, where power to declare war, as also the treaty-making power, is in
the Executive alone ; that in pursuance of this principle the President can-
not, by any act of his own, as by an unratified treaty, obtain any such
power, and thus divest Congress of its control ; and that therefore the em-
ployment of the Navy without the authority of Congress in acts of hostility
against a friendly foreign nation, or in belligerent intervention in the affairs
of a foreign nation, is an infraction of the Constitution of the United States,
and a usurpation of power not conferred upon the President.

6. Resolved, That while the President, without any previous declaration
of war by Act of Congress, may defend the country against invasion by
foreign enemies, he is not justified in exercising the same power in an out-
lying foreign island, which has not yet become part of the United States ;
that a title under an unratified treaty is at most inchoate and contingent
while it is created by the President alone, in which respect it differs from
any such title created by Act of Congress ; and since it is created by the
President alone, without the support of law, whether in legislation or a
ratified treaty, the employment of the Navy in the maintenance of the Gov-
ernment there is without any excuse of national defence, as also without
any excuse of a previous declaration of war by Congress.

VOL. XIX. 2

18 SAN DOMINGO RESOLUTIONS.

7. Resolved, That whatever may be the title to territory under an onrat-
ified treaty, it is positive that after the failure of the treaty in the Senate
all pretext of title ceases, so that our Government is in all respects a
struuger to the territory, without excuse or apology for any interference
against its enemies, foreign or domestic ; and therefore any belligerent in-
tervention or act of war on the coasts of San Domingo after the failure of
the Dominican treaty in the Senate is unauthorized violence, utterly with-
out support in law or reason, and proceeding directly from that kingly pre-
rogative which is disowned by the Constitution of the United States.

8. Resolved, That in any proceedings for the acquisition of part of the
island of San Domingo, whatever may be its temptations of soil, climate,
and productions, there must be no exercise of influence by superior force,
nor any violation of Public Law, whether International or Constitutional ;
and therefore the present proceedings, which have been conducted at great
cost of money, under the constant shadow of superior force, and through
the belligerent intervention of our Navy, acting in violation of Interna-
tional Law, and initiating war without an Act of Congress, must be aban-
doned, to the end that justice may be maintained, and that proceedings so
adverse to correct principles may not become an example for the future.

9. Resolvrd, That, instead of seeking to acquire part of the island of
San Domingo by belligerent intervention without the authority of an Act
of Congress, it would have been in better accord with the principles of our
Republic and its mission of peace and beneficence, had our Government, in
the spirit of good neighborhood and by friendly appeal, instead of belliger-
ent intervention, striven for the establishment of tranquillity throughout the
whole island, so that the internal dissensions of Dominica and its disturbed
relations with Hayti might be brought to a close, thus obtaining that secu-
rity which is the first condition of prosperity, all of which, being in the na-
ture of good offices, would have been without any violation of International
Law, and without any usurpation of War Powers under the Constitution of
the United States.

On these Resolutions Mr. Sumner, March 27th, spoke as follows :

MR PRESIDENT, Entering again upon this dis-
cussion, I perform a duty which cannot be
avoided. I wish it were otherwise, but duty is a task-
master to be obeyed. On evidence now before the Sen-
ate, it is plain that the Navy of the United States, act-
ing under orders from Washington, has been engaged in
measures of violence and of belligerent intervention,
being war without the authority of Congress. An act
of war without the authority of Congress is no common

THE QUESTION STATED. 19

event. This is the simplest statement of the case. The
whole business is aggravated, when it is considered that
the declared object of this violence is the acquisition of
foreign territory, being half an island in the Caribbean
Sea, and still further, that this violence has been em-
ployed, first, to prop and maintain a weak ruler, himself
a usurper, upholding him in power that he might sell
his country, and, secondly, to menace the Black Repub-
lic of Hayti.

Such a case cannot pass without inquiry. It is too
grave for silence. For the sake of the Navy, which has
been the agent, for the sake of the Administration, un-
der which the Navy acted, for the sake of Eepublican
Institutions, which suffer when the Great Republic
makes itself a pattern of violence, and for the sake of
the Republican Party, which cannot afford to become
responsible for such conduct, the case must be examined
on the facts and the law, and also in the light of prece-
dent, so far as precedent holds its torch. When I speak
for Republican Institutions, it is because I would not
have our great example weakened before the world, and
our good name tarnished. And when I speak for the
Republican Party, it is because from the beginning I
have been the faithful servant of that party and aspire
to see it strong and triumphant. But beyond all these
considerations is the commanding rule of Justice, which
cannot be disobeyed with impunity.

THE QUESTION STATED.

THE question which I present is very simple. It is
not, whether the acquisition of the island of San Do-
mingo, in whole or part, with a population foreign in

20 SAN DOMINGO RESOLUTIONS.

origin, language, and institutions, is desirable, but
whether we are justified in the means employed to
accomplish this acquisition. The question is essen-
tially preliminary in character, and entirely independ-
ent of the main question. On the main question there
may be difference of opinion : some thinking the acqui-
sition desirable, and others not desirable ; some anxious
for empire, or at least a sanitarium, in the tropics,
and others more anxious for a Black Republic, where
the African race shall show an example of self-govern-
ment by which the whole race may be uplifted ; some
thinking of gold mines, salt mountains, hogsheads of
sugar, bags of coffee, and boxes of cigars, others
thinking more of what we owe to the African race.
But whatever the difference of opinion on the main
question, the evidence now before us shows too clearly
that means have been employed which cannot be justi-
fied. And this is the question to which I now ask the
attention of the Senate.

REASON FOR INTEREST IN THE QUESTION.

HERE, Sir, I venture to relate how and at what time
I became specially aroused on this question. The treaty
for the annexiou of the Dominican people was pending
before the Senate, and I was occupied in considering it,
asking two questions : first, Is it good for us ? and, sec-
ondly, Is it good for them? The more I meditated
these two questions I found myself forgetting the for-
mer and considering the latter, or rather, the former
was absorbed in the latter. Thinking of our giant
strength, my anxiety increased for the weaker party,
and I thought more of what was good for them than for

REASON FOB INTEREST IN THE QUESTION. 21

us. Is annexion good for them ? This was the question
on my mind, when I was honored by a visit from the
Assistant Secretary of State, bringing with him a hand-
ful of dispatches from San Domingo. Among these
were dispatches from our Consular Agent there, who
signed the treaty of annexion, from which it distinctly
appeared that Baez, while engaged in selling his country,
was maintained in power by the Navy of the United
States. That such was the official report of our Consu-
lar Agent, who signed the treaty, there can be no ques-
tion ; and this official report was sustained by at least
one other consular dispatch. I confess now my emotion
as I read this painful revelation. Until then I had sup-
posed the proceeding blameless, although precipitate. I
had not imagined any such indefensible transgressions.

These dispatches became more important as testimo-
ny when it appeared that the writers were personally in
favor of annexion. Thus, then, it stood, that, on the
official report of our own agents, we were engaged in
forcing upon a weak people the sacrifice of their coun-
try. To me it was apparent at once that the acquisi-
tion of this foreign territory would not be respectable
or even tolerable, unless by the consent of the people
there, through rulers of their own choice, and without
force on our part. The treaty was a contract, which, ac-
cording to our own witnesses, was obtained through a
ruler owing power to our war-ships. As such, it was
beyond all question a contract obtained under duress,
and therefore void, while the duress was an interfer-
ence with the internal affairs of a foreign country, and
therefore contrary to that principle of Non-Interven-
tion which is now a rule of International Law. As this
question presented itself, I lost no time in visiting the

22 SAN DOMINGO RESOLUTIONS.

Navy Department, in order to examine the instructions
under which our naval officers were acting, and also
their reports. Unhappily, these instructions and re-
ports were too much in harmony with the other testi-
mony ; so that the State Department and Navy Depart-
ment each contained the record of the deplorable pro-
ceedings, and still they pressed the consummation. I
could not have believed it, had not the evidence been ex-
plicit. The story of Naboth's Vineyard was revived.

Violence begets violence, and that in San Domingo
naturally extended. It is with nations as with individ-
uals, once stepped in, they go forward. The harsh
menace by which the independence of the Black Re-
public was rudely assailed came next. It was another
stage in belligerent intervention. As these things were
unfolded, I felt that I could not hesitate. Here was a
shocking wrong. It must be arrested ; and to this end
I have labored in good faith. If I am earnest, it is be-
cause I cannot see a wrong done without seeking to ar-
rest it. Especially am I moved, if this wrong be done
to the weak and humble. Then, by the efforts of my
life and the commission I have received from Massachu-
setts, am I vowed to do what I can for the protection
and elevation of the African race. If I can help them,
I will ; if I can save them from outrage, I must And
never before was the occasion more imminent than
now.

CONTRACT FOR CESSION OF TERRITORY.

I SPEAK only according to unquestionable reason and
the instincts of the human heart, when I assert that a
contract for the cession of territory must be fair and
without suspicion of overawing force. Nobody can

BOAST OF SPAIN. 23

doubt this rule, whether for individuals or nations.
And where one party is more powerful than another it
becomes more imperative. Especially must it be sacred
with a Eepublic, for it is nothing but the mandate of
Justice. The rule is general in its application; nay,
more, it is part of Universal Law, common to all muni-
cipal systems and to International Law. Any departure
from this requirement makes negotiation for the time
impossible. Plainly there can be no cession of territory,
and especially no surrender of national independence,
except as the result of war, so long as hostile cannon
are frowning. The first step in negotiation must be the
withdrawal of all force, coercive or minatory.

BOAST OF SPAIN.

HERE the example of Spain furnishes a beacon-light.
Yielding to an invitation not unlike that of Baez to the
United States, this Ancient Monarchy was induced by
Santana, President of Dominica, to entertain the propo-
sition of reannexion to the Crown. Here let it be re-
marked that Santana was legitimate President, while
Baez is a usurping Dictator. And now mark the con-
trast between the Ancient Monarchy and our Eepublic,
as attested in documents. Spain boasted, in official pa-
pers, that in the act of reannexion the Dominicans were
spontaneous, free, and unanimous, that no Spanish
emissaries were in the territory to influence its people,
nor was there a Spanish bottom in its waters or a Span-
ish soldier on its land. On the question whether this
boast was justified by historic facts I say nothing. My
purpose is accomplished, when I show, that, in self-de-
fence and for the good name of Spain, it was necessary

24 SAN DOMINGO RESOLUTIONS.

to make this boast. Unhappily, no such boast can be
made now. American emissaries were in the territory,
with Cazueau and Fabens as leaders, while American
war-ships, including the Dictator, our most powerful
monitor, properly named for the sendee, were in the
waters with guns pointed at the people to be annexed,
and American soldiers with bayonets glancing in the
sun were on the decks of these war-ships, if not on the
land. The contrast is complete. In the case of Spain
the proceeding was an act of peace ; in our case it is an
act of war. The two cases are as wide asunder as peace
and war.

All must feel the importance of this statement, which,
I have to say, is not without official authority. I now
hold in my hand the Spanish documents relating to the
reannexion of Dominica, as published by the Cortes,
and with your permission I will open these authentic
pages. And here allow me to say that I speak only ac-
cording to the documents. That Spain made the boast
attests the principle.

Omitting particularities and coming at once to the
precise point, I read from a circular by the Spanish
Minister of Foreign Affairs, addressed to diplomatic
agents abroad, under date of Aranjuez, April 25, 1861,
which declares the proper forbearance and caution of
Spain, and establishes a precedent from which there
can be no appeal:

" The first condition, necessary and indispensable, which
the Government of her Majesty requires in accepting the
consequences of these events, is that the act of reincorpora-
tion of San Domingo with the Spanish Monarchy shall be
the unanimous, spontaneous, and explicit expression of the
will of the Dominicans."

BOAST OF SPAIN. 25

The dispatch then proceeds to describe the attitude
of the Spanish Government. And here it says of the
events in Dominica:

" Nor have they been the work of Spanish emigrants who
have penetrated the territory of San Domingo ; nor has the
superior authority of Havana, nor the forces of sea and land
at its disposition, contributed to them. The Captain-General
of Cuba has not separated himself, nor could he depart for a
moment, from the principles of the Government, and from
the policy which it has followed with regard to them. Not
a Spanish bottom or soldier was on the coast or in the territory
of the Republic when the latter by a unanimous movement
proclaimed its reunion to Spain." 1

It will be observed with what energy of phrase the
Spanish Minister excludes all suspicion of force on the
part of Spain. Not only was there no Spanish ship on
the coast, but not a single Spanish bottom. And then
it is alleged that "the first condition" of reannexion
must be " the unanimous, spontaneous, and explicit ex-
pression of the will of the Dominicans." No foreign
influence, no Spanish influence, was to interfere with
the popular will. But this is nothing more than jus-
tice. Anything else is wrong.

The Spanish Government, not content with announc-
ing this important rule in the dispatch which I have
quoted, return to it in another similar dispatch, dated at
Madrid, 26th May, 1861, as follows :

" The Government of the Queen, before adopting a defin-
itive resolution on this question, sought to acquire absolute
assurance that the votes of the Dominican people had been
spontaneous, free, and unanimous. The reception of the

1 Sesiones de Cortes, 14 Nov., 1861, Vol. I. Apend. VI. al NAm. 4, p. 7.

26 SAN DOMINGO RESOLUTIONS.

proclamation of the Queen as sovereign in all the villages of
the territory of San Domingo proves the spontaneousness and
the unanimity of the movement" l

Here again is the allegation that the movement was
spontaneous and unanimous, and that the Spanish Gov-
ernment sought to acquire absolute assurance on this es-
sential point. This was openly recognized as the condi-
tion-precedent ; and I cite it as unanswerable testimony
to what was deemed essential.

On this absolute assurance the Ministers laid before
the Queen in Council a decree of reannexion, with an
explanatory paper, under date of 19th May, 1861, where
the unanimity of the Dominican people is again as-
serted, and also the absence of any influence on the
part of Spain:

" Everywhere was manifested jubilee and enthusiasm in a
manner uneqmvocal and solemn. The public authorities,
following their own impulses, have obeyed the sentiment of
the country, which has put its trust in them. Rarely has
been seen such a concurrence, such a unanimity of wills to
realize an idea, a common thought. And all this, without
having on the coast of San Domingo a single bottom, nor on
the territory a soldier of Spain."*

Such is the official record on which the decree of re-
annexion was adopted. Mark well, Sir, a unanimous
people, and not a single Spanish bottom on the coast or
Spanish soldier on the territory.

i Sesiones de Cortes, 14 Nov., 1861, VoL L Apend. VL al Num. 4, p. 11.
Ibid., p. 8.

CONTRAST BETWEEN SPAIN AND UNITED STATES. 27

CONTRAST BETWEEN SPAIN AND THE UNITED STATES.

AND now mark the contrast between the Old Mon-
archy and the Great Republic. The recent return of
the Navy Department to the Senate, in reply to a reso-
lution introduced by me, shows how the whole island
has been beleaguered by our Navy, sailing from port to
port, and hugging the land with its guns. Here is the
return :

" The following are the names of the vessels which have
been in the waters of the island of San Domingo since the
commencement of the negotiations with Dominica, with their
armaments :

" Severn, 14 9-inch and 1 60-pounder rifle.

" Congress, 14 9-inch and 2 60-pounder rifles.

"Nantasket, 6 32-pounders, 4,500 pounds; 1 60-pound-
er rifle.

"Swatara, 6 32-pounders, 4,500 pounds; 1 11-inch.

" Yantic, 1 11 -inch and 2 9-inch.

" Dictator, 2 15-inch.

"Saugus, 2 15-inch.

"Terror, 4 15-inch.

" Albany, 14 9-inch and 1 60-pounder rifle.

"Nipsic, 1 11 -inch and 2 9-inch.

"Seminole, 1 11-inch and 4 32-pounders of 4,200
pounds.

"Tennessee, On spar-deck 2 11 -inch, 2 9-inch, 2 100-
pounders, and 1 60-pounder; on gun-deck, 16 9 -inch.

"The ships now [February 17, 1871] in those waters are,
as far as is known to the Department, the Congress, the Nan-
tasket, the Yantic, and the Tennessee." l

Twelve mighty war-ships, including two, if not three,
powerful monitors, maintained at the cost of millions of

1 Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 45, p. 3.

28 SAN DOMINGO RESOLUTIONS.

dollars, being part of the price of the pending negotia-
tion. Besides what we pay to Baez, here are millions
dowa Karely have we had such a fleet in any waters :
not in the Mediterranean, not in the Pacific, not in the
East Indies. It is in the waters of San Domingo that
our Navy finds its chosen field. Here is its flag, and
here also is its frown. And why this array ? If our
purpose is peace, why these engines of war ? If we
seek annexion by the declared will of the people, spon-
taneous, free, and unanimous, as was the boast of Spain,
why these floating batteries to overawe them ? If we
would do good to the African race, why begin with vio-
lence to the Black Republic ?

Before the Commissioners left our shores, there were
already three war-ships with powerful armaments in
those waters : the Congress, with fourteen 9-inch guns
and two 60-pounder rifles; the Nantasket, with six
32-pounders of 4,500 pounds, and one 60-pounder rifle ;
and the Yantic, with one 11 -inch gun and two 9-inch.
And then came the Tennessee, with two 11-inch and
two 9-inch guns, two 100-pounders and one 60-pound-
er, on its spar-deck, and sixteen 9-inch guns on its
gun-deck, to augment these forces, already dispropor-
tioned to any proper object. The Commissioners are
announced as ministers of peace ; at all events, their
declared duty is to ascertain the real sentiments of the
people. Why send them in a war-ship ? Why cram
the dove into a cannon's mouth ? There are good
steamers at New York, safe and sea- worthy, whose pres-
ence would not swell the array of war, nor subject the
Great Republic to the grave imputation of seeking to
accomplish its purpose by violence.

AN ENGLISH PRECEDENT. 29

TRAGICAL END OF SPANISH OCCUPATION.

IF while negotiating with the Dominicans for their
territory, and what is more than territory, their national
life, you will not follow Spanish example and withdraw
your war-ships with their flashing arms and threaten-
ing thunder, at least be taught by the tragedy which at-
tended even this most propitious attempt. The same
volumes of authentic documents from which I have
read show how, notwithstanding the apparent spontane-
ousness, freedom, and unanimity of the invitation, the
forbearance of Spain was followed by resistance, where
sun and climate united with the people. An official
report laid before the Cortes describes nine thousand
Spanish soldiers dead with disease, while the Spanish
occupation was reduced to three towns on the seaboard,
and it was perilous for small parties to go any distance
outside the walls of the City of San Domingo. The
same report declares that twenty thousand troops, pro-
vided for a campaign of six months, would be required
to penetrate "the heart of Cibao," more accessible
than the region occupied by General Cabral, who dis-
putes the power of Baez. At last Spain submitted.
The spirit of independence prevailed once more on the
island; and the proud banner of Castile, which had
come in peace, amid general congratulations, and with
the boast of not a Spanish bottom or Spanish soldier
near, was withdrawn.

AN ENGLISH PRECEDENT.

THE example of Spain is reinforced by an English
precedent, where may be seen in the light of analogy

30 SAN DOMINGO RESOLUTIONS.

the true rule of conduct. By a statute of the last cen-
tury, all soldiers quartered at the place of an election
for members of Parliament were removed, at least one
day before the election, to the distance of two miles or
more ; l and though this statute has been modified latter-
ly, the principle is preserved. No soldier within two
miles of a place of election is allowed to go out of the
barracks or quarters in which he is stationed, unless to
mount or relieve guard or to vote. 2 This safeguard of
elections is vindicated by the great commentator, Sir
William Blackstone, when he says, " It is essential to
the very being of Parliament that elections should be
absolutely free ; therefore all undue influences upon the
electors are illegal and strongly prohibited." 3 In ac-
cordance with this principle, as early as 1794, a com-
mittee of the other House of Congress reported against
the seat of a Representative partly on the ground that
United States troops were quartered near the place of
election and were marched in a body several times
round the court-house. 4 And now that an election is
to occur in Dominica, where National Independence is
the question, nothing is clearer than that it should be,
in the language of Blackstone, " absolutely free," and to
this end all naval force should be withdrawn at least
until the "election" is determined.

NICE AND SAVOY.

IN harmony with this rule, when Nice and Savoy-
voted on the question of annexion to France, the French

1 8 Geo. II. c. 30.

2 10 & 11 Viet. c. 21.

* Commentaries, I. 178.

4 Triggs v. Preston : Clarke and Hall, Cases of Contested Election* in
Congress, pp. 78-80.

BAEZ, THE USURPER. 31

army was punctiliously withdrawn from the borders,
all of which was in simple obedience to International
Ethics; but, instead of any such obedience, our war-
ships have hovered with constant menace on the whole
coast

SEIZURE OF WAR POWERS BY OUR GOVERNMENT.

ALL this is preliminary, although pointing the way to
a just conclusion. Only when we enter into details and
consider what has been done by our Government, do we
recognize the magnitude of the question. Unless the
evidence supplied by the agents of our Government is
at fault, unless the reports of the State Department
and Navy Department are discredited, it is obvious
beyond doubt, most painfully plain and indisputable,
that the President has seized the war powers .carefully
guarded by the Constitution, and without the authority
of Congress has employed them to trample on the in-
dependence and equal rights of two nations coequal
with ours, unless, to carry out this project of territo-
rial acquisition, you begin by setting at defiance a first
principle of International Law. This is no hasty or
idle allegation ; nor is it made without immeasurable
regret. And the regret is increased by the very strength
of the evidence, which is strictly official and beyond all
question.

BAEZ, THE USURPER.

IN this melancholy business the central figure is
Buenaventura Baez, unless we except President Grant,
to whom some would accord the place of honor. The
two have acted together as copartners. To appreciate

32 SAN DOMINGO RESOLUTIONS.

the case, and especially to comprehend the breach of
Public Law, you must know something of the former,
and how he has been enabled to play his part. Domin-
ican by birth, with much of Spanish blood, and with a
French education, he is a cross where these different el-
ements are somewhat rudely intermixed. One in whom
I have entire confidence describes him, in a letter to
myself, as " the worst man living of whom he has any
personal knowledge " ; and he adds, that so must say
"every honest and honorable man who knows his his-
tory and his character." All his life he has been ad-
venturer, conspirator, and trickster, uncertain in opin-
ions, without character, without patriotism, without
truth, looking out supremely for himself, and on any
side according to imagined personal interest, being once
violent against the United States as he now professes to
be for them.

By the influence of General Santana, Baez obtained
his first election as President in 1849 ; and in 1856, con-
trary to a positive provision of the Constitution against
a second term except after the intervention of an entire
term, he managed by fraud and intrigue to obtain anoth-
er lease of power. Beginning thus early his violations of
the Constitution, he became an expert. But the people
rose against him, and he was driven to find shelter with-
in the walls of the city. He had never been friendly to
the United States, and at this time was especially abu-
sive. His capitulation soon followed, and after a year
of usurped power he left for France. Santana suc-
ceeded to the Presidency, and under him in 1861 the
country was reincorporated with Spain, amidst the pre-
vailing enthusiasm of the people. Anxious to propitiate
the different political chiefs, the Spanish Government

BAEZ, THE USURPER. 33

offered Baez a major-general's commission in the Army,
on condition that he should remain in Europe, which he
accepted. For some time there was peace in Dominica,
when the people, under the lead of the patriot Cabral,
rose against the Spanish power. During this protracted
period of revolution, while the patriotism of the country
was stirred to its inmost depths, the Dominican adven-
turer clung to his Spanish commission with its honors
and emoluments, not parting with them until after the
Cortes at Madrid had renounced the country and or-
dered its evacuation ; and then, in his letter of resigna-
tion addressed to the Queen, under date of June 15,
1865, he again outraged the feelings of his countrymen
by declaring his regret at the failure of annexion to
Spain, and his " regard for her august person and the
noble Spanish nation," against whose arms they had
been fighting for Independence. Losing his Spanish
honors and emoluments, the adventurer was at once
changed into a conspirator, being always a trickster,
and from his European retreat began his machinations
for power. Are we not told by the proverb that the
Devil has a long arm?

On the disappearance of the Spanish flag, Cabral be-
came Protector, and a National Convention was sum-
moned to frame a Constitution and to organize a new
Government. The people were largely in favor of
Cabral, when armed men, in the name of Baez, and
stimulated by his emissaries, overwhelmed the Assem-
bly with violence, forcing the conspirator into power.
Cabral, who seems to have been always prudent and
humane, anxious to avoid bloodshed, and thinking
that his considerable European residence might have
improved the usurper, consented to accept a place in

VOL. XIX. 3

34 SAN DOMINGO RESOLUTIONS.

the Cabinet, which was inaugurated December 8, 1865.
Ill-gotten power is short-lived ; revolution soon began,
and in the month of May, 1866, Baez, after first finding
asylum in the French Consulate, fled to foreign parts.

The official journal of San Domingo, " El Monitor,"
(June 2, 1866,) now before me, shows how the fugitive
tyrant was regarded at this time. In the leading article
it is said :

" The administration of General Buenaventura Baez has
just fallen under the weight of a great revolution, in which
figure the principal notabilities of the country. A spontane-
ous cry, which may be called national, because it has risen
from the depths of the majority, reveals the proportions of
the movement, its character, and its legitimacy."

Then follows in the same journal a manifesto signed
by the principal inhabitants of Dominica, where are set
forth with much particularity the grounds of his over-
throw, alleging that he became President not by the
free and spontaneous choice of the people, but was im-
posed upon the nation by an armed movement ; that he
treated the chief magistracy as if it were his own patri-
mony, and monopolized for himself and his brothers all
the lucrative enterprises of the country without regard
to the public advantage ; that, instead of recognizing
the merit of those who had by their sacrifices served
their country, he degraded, imprisoned, and banished
them ; that, in violation of the immunity belonging to
members of the Constituent Assembly, he sent them to
a most horrible prison, and here numerous persons are
named ; that, without any judicial proceedings, contrary
to the Constitution, and in the spirit of vengeance, he
shut up many deserving men in obscure dungeons,

BAEZ, THE USURPER. 35

and here also are many names ; that, since his occupation
of the Presidency, he has kept the capital in constant
alarm, and has established a system of terrorism in the
bosom of the national representation. All this and
much more will be found in this manifesto. There is
also a manifesto of Cabral, assigning at still greater
length reasons for the overthrow of Baez, and holding
him up as the enemy of peace and union ; also a mani-
festo by the Triumvirate constituting the Provisional
Government, declaring his infractions of the Constitu-
tion ; also a manifesto from the general in command at
the City of San Domingo, where, after denouncing the
misdeeds of one man, it says, " This man, this monster,
this speculator, this tyrant, is the General Buenaven-
tura Baez."

Soon after the disappearance of Baez, his rival be-
came legitimate President by the direct vote of the
people, according to the requirement of the Constitu-
tion. Different number^ of the official journal now be-
fore me contain the election returns in September, 1866,
where the name of General Jose* Maria Cabral appears
at the head of the poll This is memorable as the first
time in the history of Dominica that a question was
submitted to the direct vote of the people. By that di-
rect vote Cabral became President, and peace ensued.
Since then there has been no election ; so that this was
last as well as first, leaving Cabral the last legitimate
President.

During his enforced exile, Baez found his way to
Washington. Mr. Seward declined to see him, but re-
ferred him to me. I had several conversations with
him at my house. His avowed object was to obtain
money and arms to aid him in the overthrow of the

36 SAN DOMINGO RESOLUTIONS.

existing Government. Be assured, Mr. President, he
obtained no encouragement from me, although I did
not hesitate to say, as I always have said, that I hoped
my country would never fail to do all possible good to
Dominica, extending to it a helping hand. It was at
a later day that belligerent intervention began.

Meanwhile Cabral, embarrassed by financial difficul-
ties and a dead weight of paper money, the legacy of
the fugitive conspirator, turned to the United States for
assistance, offering a lease of the Bay of Samana. Then
spoke Baez from his retreat, denouncing what he called
" the sale of his country to the United States," adopting
the most inflammatory language. By his far-reaching
and unscrupulous activity a hostile force was organized,
which, with the help of Salnave, the late ruler of Hayti,
compelled the capitulation of Cabral, February 8, 1868.
A Convention was appointed, not elected, which pro-
ceeded to nominate Baez for the term of four years, not
as President, but as Dictator. Declining the latter title,
the triumphant conspirator accepted that of Gran Ciu-
dadano, or Grand Citizen, with unlimited powers. At
the same time his enemies were driven into exile. The
prisons were gorged, and the most respectable citizens
were his victims. Naturally such a man would sell his
country. Wanting money, he cared little how it was
got. Anything for money, even his country.

ORIGIN OF THE SCHEME.

CABRAL withdrew to the interior, keeping up a men-
ace of war, while the country was indignant with the
unscrupulous usurper, who for the second time obtained
power by violence. Power thus obtained was naturally

ORIGIN OF THE SCHEME. 37

uncertain, and Baez soon found himself obliged to in-
voke foreign assistance. "Help me, Cassius, or I sink!"
cried the Grand Citizen. European powers would not
listen. None of them wanted his half-island, not
Spain, not France, not England. None would take it.
But still the Grand Citizen cried, when at last he was
relieved by an answering voice from our Eepublic. A
young officer, inexperienced in life, ignorant of the world,
untaught in the Spanish language, unversed in Interna-
tional Law, knowing absolutely nothing of the inter-
course between nations, and unconscious of the Consti-
tution of his country, was selected by the President to
answer the cry of the Grand Citizen. I wish that I
could say something better of General Babcock ; but if
I spoke according to the evidence, much from his own
lips, the portraiture would be more painful, and his un-
fitness more manifest. In closest association with Baez,
and with profitable concessions not easy to measure,
was the American Caznea"u, known as disloyal to our
country, and so thoroughly suspected that the military
missionary, before leaving Washington, was expressly
warned against him ; but like seeks like, and he at once
rushed into the emorace of the selfish speculator, who
boasted that "no one American had been more inti-
mately connected with the Samana and annexation ne-
gotiations, from their inception to their close, than him-
self," and who did not hesitate to instruct Baez that
it was not only his right, but duty, to keep an Ameri-
can citizen in prison " to serve and protect negotiations
in which our President was so deeply interested," which
he denominates " the great business in hand." l

1 Ijetters to Perry and Babcock, Report on the Memorial of Davis
Hatch, pp. 90, 136: Senate Reports, 41st Cong. 2d Sens., No. 234.

38 SAN DOMINGO RESOLUTIONS.

By the side of Cazneau was Fabens, also a speculator
and life-long intriguer, afterwards Envoy Extraordinary
and Minister Plenipotentiary of Baez in " the great busi-
ness." Sparing details, which would make the picture
more sombre, I come at once to the conclusion. A
treaty was signed by which the usurper pretended to
sell his country to the United States in consideration of
$ 1,500,000 ; also another treaty leasing the Bay of Sa-
mana for an annual rent of $150,000. The latter sum
was paid down by the young plenipotentiary, or $ 100,-
000 in cash and $ 50,000 in muskets and a battery. No
longer able to pocket the doubloons of Spain, the usurp-
er sought to pocket our eagles, and not content with
muskets and a battery to be used against his indignant
fellow-countrymen, obtained the Navy of the United
States to maintain him in his treason. It was a plot
worthy of the hardened conspirator and his well-tried
confederates.

OPEN INFRACTION OF THE DOMINICAN CONSTITUTION.

THE case was aggravated by the open infraction of
the Constitution of Dominica with which it proceeded.
By that Constitution, adopted 27th September, 1866, a
copy of which is now before me, it is solemnly declared
that " neither the whole nor part of the territory of the
Republic can ever be alienated," while the President
takes the following oath of office : " I swear by God
and the Holy Gospels to observe and cause to be ob-
served the Constitution and the Laws of the Dominican
People, to respect their rights, and to maintain the Na-
tional Independence." The Constitution of 1865 had
said simply, " No part of the territory of the Republic

OPEN INFRACTION OF DOMINICAN CONSTITUTION. 39

can ever be alienated"; but now, as if anticipating
recent events, it was declared, "Neither the whole nor
part," thus explicitly excluding the power exercised.
All this was set aside while the plot went on. Even if
Baez defied the Constitution of his country, our Govern-
ment, in dealing with him, could not do so. In negotia-
tion with another power, the Great Eepublic, which is
an example to nations, cannot be insensible to the re-
strictions imposed by the Constitution of the contract-
ing party; and this duty becomes stronger from the
very weakness of the other side. Defied by the Domin-
ican usurper, all these restrictions must be sacredly re-
garded by us. Than this nothing can be clearer in In-
ternational Ethics ; but the rule of Law is like that of
Ethics. Ancient Rome, speaking in the text of Ulpian,
says : " He who contracts with another either knows or
ought to know his condition," Qui cum alio contrahit
vel est vel DEBET esse non \gnarus conditionis ejus ; 1 and
this rule has the authority of Wheaton as part of In-
ternational Law. 2 Another writer gives to it this practi-
cal statement, precisely applicable to the present case :
" Nevertheless, in order to make such transfer valid, the
authority, whether de facto or dejure, must be compe-
tent to bind the State. Hence the necessity of examin-
ing into and ascertaining the powers of the rulers, as the
municipal constitutions of different states throw many
difficulties in the way of alienations of their public
property, and particularly of their territory" 3 Thus,
according to International Law, as expounded by Amer-
ican authority, was this treaty forbidden.

1 Digest. Lib. L. Tit. rvii. : De diversis regulis juris antiqui, 19.
a Elements of International Law, Part III. Ch. 2, 6, ed. Lawrence;
266, ed. Dana.
Halleck, International Law, Ch. VI. 9.

40 SAN DOMINGO RESOLUTIONS.

Treaties negotiated in violation of the Dominican
Constitution and of International Law were to be main-
tained at all hazards, even that last terrible hazard of
war ; nor was Public Law in any of its forms, Constitu-
tional or International, allowed to stand in the way.
The War Powers, so carefully guarded in every Repub-
lican Government, and so jealously defended against the
One-Man Power, were instantly seized, in open viola-
tion of the Constitution of the United States, which was
as little regarded as that of Dominica, while the Law of
Nations in its most commanding principles was set at
defiance : all of which appears too plainly on the facts.

ALLEGATIONS IN FORMER SPEECH NOW REPEATED.

WHEN last I had the honor of addressing the Senate
on this grave question, you will remember, Sir, my two-
fold allegation : first, that the usurper Baez was main-
tained in power by our Navy to enable him to carry out
the sale of his country ; and, secondly, that further to
assure this sale the neighbor Republic of Hayti was
violently menaced by an admiral of our fleet, both
acts being unquestionable breaches of Public Law, Con-
stitutional and International. That these allegations
were beyond question, at least by our Government, I
knew well at the time, for 1 had the official evidence on
my table ; but I was unable to use it. Since then it has
been communicated to the Senate. What I then as-
serted on my own authority I now present on documen-
tary evidence. My witnesses are the officers of the
Government and their official declarations. Let the
country judge if I was not right in every word that I
then employed And still further, let the country

TWO SOURCES OF TESTIMONY. 41

judge if the time has not come to cry "Halt!" in this
business, which already has the front of war.

WAR

WAR, Sir, is the saddest chapter of history. It is
known as "the last reason of kings." Alas, that it
should ever be the reason of a Republic ! " There can
be no such thing, my Lords, as a little war for a great na-
tion," was the exclamation of the Duke of Wellington, 1
which I heard from his own lips, as he protested against
what to some seemed petty. Gathering all the vigor of his
venerable form, the warrior seasoned in a hundred fights
cried out, and all within the sound of his voice felt the
testimony. The reason is obvious. War, whether great
or little, whether on the fields of France or the island of
San Domingo, is war, over TOhich hovers not only Death,
but every demon of wrath. Nor is war merely conflict
on a chosen field ; it is force employed by one nation
against another, or in the affairs of another, as in the
direct menace to Hayti, and the intermeddling between
Baez and CabraL There may be war without battle.
Hercules conquered by manifest strength the moment
he appeared on the ground, so that his club rested un-
used. And so our Navy has thus far conquered without
a shot; but its presence in the waters of Hayti and Dom-
inica was war.

TWO SOURCES OF TESTIMONY.

ALL this will be found under two different heads, or
in two different sources : first/what is furnished by the

l Speech in the House of Lords, February 5, 1839: Times, Feb. 6th.

42 SAN DOMINGO RESOLUTIONS.

State Department, and, secondly, what is furnished by
the Navy Department. These two Departments are
witnesses, with their agents, confessing and acting.
From the former we have confession ; from the latter
we have acts : confessions and acts all in harmony and
supporting each other. I begin with the confession.

CONFESSION OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

IN the strange report of the Secretary of State, re-
sponsive to a resolution moved by me in the Senate, the
dependence of Baez upon our Navy is confessed in vari-
ous forms. Nobody can read this document without
noting the confession, first from the reluctant Secretary,
and then from his agent

Referring to the correspondence of Raymond H.
Perry, our Commercial Agent at San Domingo, who
signed the treaties, the Secretary presents a summary,
which, though obnoxious to just criticism, is a confes-
sion. According to him, the correspondence " tends to
show that the presence of a United States man-of-war
in the port was supposed to have a peaceful influenced 1
The term " peaceful influence " is the pleonasm of the
Secretary, confessing the maintenance of Baez in his
usurpation. There is no such thing as stealing; "convey
the wise it call " ; and so with the Secretary the main-
tenance of a usurper by our war-ships is only " a peace-
ful influence." A discovery of the Secretary. But in
the levity of his statement the Secretary forgets that a
United States man-of-war has nothing to do within a
foreign jurisdiction, and cannot exert influence there
without unlawful intervention.

* Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 17, p. 12.

CONFESSION OF STATE DEPARTMENT. 43

The Secretary alludes also to the probability of " an-
other revolution," of course against Baez, in the event
of the failure of the annexion plot ; and here is another
confession of the dependence of the usurper upon our
Navy.

But the correspondence of Mr. Perry, as communi-
cated to the Senate, shows more plainly than the con-
fession of the Secretary how completely the usurper was
maintained in power by the strong arm of the United
States.

The anxiety of the usurper was betrayed at an early
day, even while vaunting the popular enthusiasm for
annexion. In a dispatch dated at San Domingo, Jan-
uary 20, 1870, Mr. Perry thus reports :

"The Nantasket left this port January 1, 1870, and we
have not heard from her since. She was to go to Puerto
Plata [a port of Dominica] and return via Samana Bay [also
in Dominica]. We need the protection of a man-of-war very
much, but anticipate her return very soon." 1

Why the man-of-war was needed is easily inferred
from what is said in the same dispatch:

"The President tells me that it is almost impossible to
prevent the people pronouncing for annexation before the
proper time. He prefers to await the arrival of a United
States man-of-war before their opinion is publicly expressed" *

If the truth were told, the usurper felt that it was
almost impossible to prevent the people from pronounc-
ing for his overthrow, and therefore he wanted war-
ships.

i Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Seas., Senate, No. 17, p. 104.
Ibid.

44 SAN DOMINGO RESOLUTIONS.

Then under date of February 8, 1870, Mr. Perry re-
ports again :

"President Baez daily remarks that the United States
Government has not kept its promises to send men-of-war to
the coast. He seems very timid and lacks energy." l

The truth becomes still more apparent in the dispatch
of February 20, 1870, nearly three mouths after the
signature of the treaties, and while they were still pend-
ing before the Senate, where it is openly reported :

" If the United States ships were withdrawn, he [Baez] could
not hold the reins of this Government. I have told him this." a

Nothing can be plainer. In other words, the usurper
was maintained in power by our guns. Such was the
official communication of the very agent who had signed
the treaties, and who was himself an ardent annexionist.
Desiring annexion, he confesses the means employed to
accomplish it. How the President did not at once
abandon, unfinished, treaties maintained by violence,
how the Secretary of State did not at once resign rather
than be a party to this transaction, is beyond compre-
hension.

Nor was the State Department left uninformed with
regard to the distribution of this naval force. Here is
the report, under date of San Domingo, March 12, 1870,
while the vote was proceeding :

" The Severn lies at this port ; the Swatara left for Sa-
mana the 9th ; the Nantasket goes to Puerto Plata to-morrow,
the 1 3th ; the Yantic lies in the river 'in this city. Admiral
Poor, on board the Severn, is expected to remain at this port

1 Senate Reports, 41st Cong. 2d Sess. No. 234, p. 63.

8 Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 17, p. 105.

AMERICAN CITIZEN SACRIFICED TO THE TREATY. 45

for some time. Everything is very quiet at present through-
out the country." 1

Thus under the guns of our Navy was quiet main-
tained, while Baez, like another usurper, exclaimed,
"Now, by St. Paul, the work goes bravely on!"

What this same official reported to the State Depart-
ment he afterward reaffirmed under oath, in his testimo-
ny before the committee of the Senate on the case of
Mr. Hatch. The words were few, but decisive, touch-
ing the acts of our Navy, " committed since we had
been there, protecting Baez from the citizens of San
Domingo." 2

Then, again, in a private letter to myself, under date
of Bristol, Ehode Island, February 10, 1871, after stat-
ing that he had reported what the record shows to be
true, " that Baez was sustained and held in power by
the United States Navy," he adds, " This fact Baez ac-
knowledged to me."

So that we have the confession of the Secretary of
State, also the confession of his agent at San Domingo,
and the confession of Baez himself, that the usurper de-
pended for support on our Navy.

AN AMERICAN CITIZEN SACRIFICED TO HELP THE
TREATY.

THIS drama of a usurper sustained by foreign power
is illustrated by an episode, where the liberty of an
American citizen was sacrificed to the consummation
of the plot. It appears that Davis Hatch, of Norwalk,
Connecticut, intimately known to one of the Senators of

1 Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Seas., Senate, No. 17, p. 107.
Senate Reports, 41st Cong. 2d Sess., No. 234, p. 195.

46 SAN DOMINGO RESOLUTIONS.

that State [Mr. FERRY] and respected by the other [Mr.
BUCKINGHAM], lived in Dominica, engaged in business
there, while Cabral was the legitimate President. Dur-
ing this time he wrote letters to a New York paper, in
which he exposed the character of the conspirator Baez,
then an exile. When the latter succeeded by violence
in overthrowing the regular Government, one of his first
acts was to arrest Mr. Hatch, on the ground that he had
cooperated with Cabral. How utterly groundless was
this charge appears by a letter to Baez from his own
brother, governor of the province where the former re-
sided, 1 and also by the testimony of Mr. Somers Smith,
our Commercial Agent in San Domingo, who spoke and
acted as became a representative of our country. 2 Read
the correspondence and testimony candidly, and you
will confess that the whole charge was trumped up to
serve the purpose of the usurper.

Sparing all details of trial and pardon, where every-
thing testifies against Baez, I come to the single deci-
sive point, on which there can be no question, that, even
after his formal pardon, Mr. Hatch was detained in pris-
on by the authority of the usurper, at the special in-
stance of Cazneau and with the connivance of Babcock,
in order to prevent his influence against the treaty of
annexion. The evidence is explicit and unanswerable.
Gautier, the Minister of Baez, who had signed the treaty,
in an official note to our representative, Mr. Raymond
H. Perry, dated at San Domingo, February 19, 1870,
and communicated to the State Department, says : " I
desire that you will be good enough to assure his Excel-
lency, the Secretary of State in Washington, that the

l Senate Reports, 41st Cong. 2d Seas., No. 234, p. 186.
Ibid., pp. 1-3; 7-19; 148-163; 165.

AMERICAN CITIZEN SACRIFICED TO THE TREATY. 47

prolwiyed sojourn of Mr. Hatch here has been only to
prevent his hostile action in New York" l Nor is this
all Under the same date, Cazneau had the equal har-
dihood to write to Babcock, then at Washington, a sim-
ilar version of the conspiracy, where, after denunciation
of Perry as "embarrassing affairs here," in San Domingo,
by his persistency in urging the release of Mr. Hatch,
he relates, that, on occasion of a recent peremptory de-
mand of this sort in his presence, Baez replied, that
Hatch " would certainly make use of his liberty to join
the enemies of annexation," and " that a few weeks' re-
straint would not be so inconvenient to him as his slan-
derous statements might become to the success of General
Grant's policy in the Antilles," and he adds, that he
himself, in response to the simultaneous charge of " op-
posing the liberation of aiuinnocent man," declared, that,
in his opinion, " President Baez had the right, and ought,
to do everything in his power to serve and protect negotia-
tions in which our President was so deeply interested." 2
All this is clear, plain, and documentary. Nor is there
any drawback or deduction on account of the character
of Mr. Hatch, who, according to the best testimony, is
an excellent citizen, enjoying the good-will and esteem
of his neighbors at home, being respected there "as
much as Governor Buckingham is in Norwich," 3 and
we all know that no higher standard can be reached.

In other days it was said that the best government is
where an injury to a single citizen is resented as an
injury to the whole State. Here was an American citi-
zen, declared by our representative to be " an innocent

l Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 17, p. 106.
a Senate Reports, 41st Cong. 2d Sess., No. 234, pp. 135-36.
Ibid., p. 181.

48 SAN DOMINGO RESOLUTIONS.

man," and already pardoned for' the crimes falsely al-
leged against him, incarcerated, or, according to the po-
lite term of the Minister of Baez, compelled to a " pro-
longed sojourn," in order to assure the consummation of
the plot for the acceptance of the treaty, or, in the words
of Cazneau, " to serve and protect negotiations in which
our President [Grant] was so deeply interested." The
cry, " I am an American citizen," was nothing to Baez,
nothing to Cazneau, nothing to Babcock. The young
missionary heard the cry and answered not. Annexion
was in peril. Annexion could not stand the testimony
of Mr. Hatch, who would write in New York papers.
Therefore was he doomed to a prison. Here again I
forbear details, though at each point they testify. And
yet the Great Eepublic, instead of spurning at once the
heartless usurper who trampled on the liberty of an
American citizen, and spurning the ill-omened treaty
which required this sacrifice, continued to lend its strong
arm in the maintenance of the trampler, while with un-
exampled assiduity it pressed the treaty upon a reluct-
ant Senate.

CONFESSION OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT WITH REGARD
TO HAYTI.

BUT intervention in Dominica is only one part of the
story, even according to the confession of the State De-
partment. Side by side with Dominica on the same
tempting island is the Black Republic of Hayti, with a
numerous population, which more than two generations
ago achieved national independence, and at a later day,
by the recognition of our Government, took its place
under the Law of Nations as equal and peer of the

CONFESSION WITH EEGAKD TO HAYTL 49

Great Republic. To all its paramount titles of Inde-
pendence and Equality, sacred and unimpeachable, must
be added its special character as an example of self-gov-
ernment, being the first in the history of the Afiican
race, and a promise of the future. Who can doubt that
as such this Black Eepublic has a value beyond all the
products of its teeming tropical soil ? Like other Gov-
ernments, not excepting our own, it has complications,
domestic and foreign. Among the latter is chronic hos-
tility with Dominica, arising from claims territorial and
pecuniary. To these claims I refer without undertaking
to consider their justice. It is enough that they exist.
And here comes the wrong perpetuated by the Great
Eepublic. In the effort to secure the much-coveted ter-
ritory, our Government, not content with maintaining
the usurper Baez in powei> occupying the harbors of
Dominica with the war-ships of the United States, sent
other war-ships, being none other than our most power-
ful monitor, the Dictator, with the frigate Severn as con-
sort, and with yet other monitors in their train, to men-
ace the Black Republic by an act of war. An American
admiral was found to do this thing, and an American
minister, himself of African blood, was found to aid the
admiral

The dispatch of the Secretary of State instituting this
act of war does not appear in his Report ; but we are
sufficiently enlightened by that of Mr. Bassett, our Min-
ister Resident at Port-au-Prince, who, under date of
February 17, 1870, informs the State Department in
Washington that he had "transmitted to the Haytian
Government notification that the United States asked
and expected it to observe a strict neutrality in refer-
ence to the internal affairs of San Domingo " ; and then,

50 SAN DOMINGO RESOLUTIONS.

with superserviceable alacrity, lie lets the Department
know that he communicated to Commander. Owen, of
the Seminole, reports that " persons in authority under
the Haytian Government were planning clandestinely
schemes for interference in San Domingo affairs." J But
a moment of contrition seems to have overtaken the
Minister ; for he adds, that he did not regard these re-
ports "as sufficiently reliable to make them the basis
for a recommendation of severe or extreme measures."*
Pray* by what title, Mr. Minister, could you recommend
any such measures, being nothing less than war against
the Black Kepublic ? By what title could you launch
these great thunders ? The menacing note of the Min-
ister was acknowledged by the Black Republic without
one word of submission, as also without one word of
proper resentment. 3

The officious Minister of the Great Republic reports
to the State Department that he had addressed a diplo-
matic note to the Black Republic, under date of Febru-
ary 9, 1870, where, referring to the answer of the latter,
he says, " It would nevertheless have been more satis-
factory and agreeable to my Government and myself, if
you, in speaking for your Government, had felt author-
ized to give assurance of the neutrality asked and ex-
pected by the United States." 4 This letter was written
with the guns of the Dictator and Severn behind. It
appears from the Minister's report, that these two war-
ships arrived at the capital of the Black Republic on the
morning of February 9th, when the Minister, as he
says, " arranged for a formal call on the Haytian Gov-

1 Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 17, p. 108.

Ibid.

Ibid., pp. 109-10.

* Ibid., p. 111.

RECORD OF THE NAVY DEPARTMENT. 51

eminent the same day." The Minister then records,
and no blush appears on his paper, that "the Admiral
availed himself of this visit to communicate, quite point-
edly, to the President and his advisers the tenor of his
instructions." 1 This assault upon the Independence
and Equality of the Black Eepublic will appear more
fully in the Eeport transmitted to the Senate by the
Navy Department. For the present I present the case
on the confession of the State Department.

RECORD OF THE NAVY DEPARTMENT.

IF the Eeport of the State Department is a confes-
sion, that of the Navy Department is an authentic rec-
ord of acts flagrant and indefensible, unless we are
ready to set aside the Law of Nations and the Consti-
tution of the United States, two paramount safeguards.
Both of these are degraded in order to advance the
scheme. If I called it plot, I should not err ; for this
term is suggested by the machination. The record is
complete.

The scheme first shows itself in a letter from the
Secretary of State to the Secretary of the Navy, under
date of May 17, 1869, informing the latter that the
President deems it " desirable that a man-of-war, com-
manded by a discreet and intelligent officer, should be
ordered to visit th# several ports of the Dominican Eepub-
lic, and to report upon the condition of affairs in that
quarter." The Secretary adds:

"It is also important that we should have full and ac-
curate information in regard to the views of the Dominican

l Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 17, p. 109.

52 SAN DOMINGO RESOLUTIONS.

people of all parties in regard to annexation to the United
States, or the sale or lease of the Bay of Sainana, or of ter-
ritory adjacent thereto." l

No invitation from the island appears, not a word
even from any of its people. The beginning is in the
letter of the Secretary ; and here we see how " a man-of-
war " formed part of the first stage. A mere inquiry is
inaugurated by " a man-of-war." Nor was it to stop at
a single place ; it was to visit the several ports of the
Dominican Republic.

The Secretary of the Navy obeyed. Orders were
given, and under date of June 29, 1869, Rear-Admiral
Hoff reports that the Nipsic, with an armament of one
11-inch and two 9-inch guns, "is to visit all the ports
of the Dominican Republic." 2 Here again is a revela-
tion, foreshadowing the future ; all the ports are to be
visited by this powerful war-ship. Why? To what
just end ? If for negotiation, then was force, force,
FORCE our earliest, as it has been since our constant
plenipotentiary. Already we discern the contrast with
Old Spain.

The loss of a screw occurred to prevent this war-
breathing perambulation. The Nipsic did not go be-
yond Port-au-Prince ; but Lieutenant-Commander Self-
ridge, in his report, under date of July 14, 1869, lets
drop an honest judgment, which causes regret that he
did not visit the whole island. Thus he wrote :

" While my short stay in the island will not permit me to
speak with authority, it is my individual opinion, that, if the
United States should annex Hayti on the representation of a

1 Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3dSess., Senate, No. 34, pp. 2, 3.
8 Ibid., No. 34, p. 3; No.45, p. 3.

RECORD OF THE NAVY DEPARTMENT. 53

jxirty, it would be found an elephant both costly in money
and lives." *

The whole case is opened when we are warned against
annexion " on the representation of a party."

Still the scheme proceeded. On the 17th July, 1869,
General Babcock sailed from New York for San Do-
mingo, as special agent of the State Department. The
records of the Department, so far as communicated to
the Senate, show no authority to open negotiations of
any kind, much less to treat for the acquisition of this
half-island. His instructions, which are dated July 13,
1869, are simply to make certain inquiries ; 2 but, under
the same date, the Secretary of the Navy addresses a
letter to Commander Owen, of the Seminole, with an
armament of one 11-inch gun and four 32-pounders, of
4,200 pounds, in which he says :

"You will remain at Samana, or on the coast of San
Domingo, while General Babcock is there, and give him the
moral support of your guns" *

The phrase of the Secretary is at least curious. And
who is General Babcock, that on his visit the Navy is
to be at his back ? Nothing on this head is said. All
that we know from the record is that he was to make
certain inquiries, and in this business "guns" play a
part. To be sure, it was their " moral support " he was
to have; but they were nevertheless "guns." Thus in
all times has lawless force sought to disguise itself.
Before any negotiation was begun, while only a few
interrogatories were ordered by the State Department,

1 Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 34, p. 6.
Ibid., No. 17, p. 79.
Ibid,, No. 34, p. 6.

54 SAN DOMINGO RESOLUTIONS.

under which this missionary acted, " the moral support
of guns " was ordered by the Navy Department. Here,
Sir, permit me to say, is the first sign of war, being an
undoubted usurpation, whether by President or Secre-
tary. War is hostile force, and here it is ordered. But
tin's is only a squint, compared with the open declara-
tion which ensued. And here again we witness the
contrast with Old Spain.

But the " guns " of the Seminole were not enough to
support the missionary in his inquiries. The Navy De-
partment, under date of August 23, 1869, telegraphed to
the commandant at Key West :

" Direct a vessel to proceed without a moment's delay to
San Domingo City, to be placed at the disposal of General
Babcock while on thai coast. If not at San Domingo City,
to find him."

Here is nothing less than the terrible earnestness of
war itself. Accordingly, the Tuscarora was dispatched ;
and the missionary finds himself changed to a commo-
dore. Again the contrast with Old Spain !

How many days the Tuscarora took to reach the
coast does not appear; but on the 4th September the
famous protocol was executed by Orville E. Babcock,
entitling himself " Aide-de-Camp to his Excellency,
General Ulysses S. Grant, President of the United
States of America," where, besides stipulating the an-
nexion of Dominica to the United States in considera-
tion of $1,500,000, it is further provided that "his Ex-
cellency, General Grant, President of the United States,
promises, privately, to use all his influence in order that

1 Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 34, p. 8.

RECORD OF THE NAVY DEPARTMENT. 55

the idea of annexing the Dominican Republic to the
United States may acquire such a degree of popularity
among members of Congress as will be necessary for its
accomplishment." 1 Such was the work which needed
so suddenly " without a moment's delay " a second
war-ship besides the Seminole, which was already or-
dered to lend "the moral support of its guns." How
unlike that boast of Old Spain, that there was not a
Spanish bottom in those waters!

Eeturning to Washington with his protocol, the mis-
sionary was now sent back with instructions to nego-
tiate two treaties, one for the annexion of the half-
island, and the other for the lease of the Bay of Samana.
By the Constitution ambassadors and other public min-
isters are appointed by the President by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate ; but our missionary
held no such commission. How the business sped ap-
pears from the State Department. The Report of the
Navy Department shows how it was sustained by force.
By a letter under date of December 3, 1869, on board
the ship Albany, off San Domingo, addressed to lieu-
tenant-Commander Bunce on board the Nantasket, the
missionary, after announcing the conclusion of a treaty
for the lease of Samana and other purposes, imparts this
important information :

"In this negotiation the President has guarantied to the
Dominican Eepublic protection from all foreign interposition
during the time specified in the treaties for submitting the
same to the people of the Dominican Republic."

Of the absolute futility and nullity of this Presiden-
tial guaranty until after the ratification of the treaties I

1 Senate Reports, 41st Cong. 2d Sess., No. 234, p. 188.

56 SAN DOMINGO RESOLUTIONS.

shall speak hereafter. Meanwhile we behold the mis-
sioiiary changed to plenipotentiary :

" For this purpose the honorable Secretary of the Navy
was directed to place three armed vessels in this harbor, sub-
ject to my instruction."

Why three armed vessels ? For what purpose ? How
unlike the boast of Old Spain ! What follows reveals
the menace of war:

" I shall raise the United States flag on shore, and shall
lea\e a small guard with it."

Here is nothing less than military occupation. Be-
sides war-ships in the waters, the flag is to be raised on
shore, and soldiers of the United States are to be left
with it. Again the contrast with Old Spain, boasting
not only that there was not a single Spanish " bottom "
on the coast, but not a single Spanish soldier on the
land. Then follows an order to make war:

" Should you find any foreign intervention intended, you
iffill use all your force to carry out to the letter the guaranties
given in the treaties."

Nothing could be stronger. Here is war. Then comes
a direct menace by the young plenipotentiary, launched
at the neighboring Black Eepublic :

" The Dominican Republic fears trouble from the Haytian
border, about Jacmel. You will please inform the people, in
case you are satisfied there is an intended intervention, that
such intervention, direct or indirect, will be regarded as an
unfriendly act toward the United States, and take such steps
a you think necessary." 1

1 Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 34, p. 9.

RECORD OF THE NAVY DEPARTMENT. 57

The Dominican Republic fears trouble, or in other
words the usurper Baez trembles for his power, and
therefore the guns of our Navy are to be pointed at
Hayti. Again, how little like Old Spain! And this
was the way in which our negotiation began. We have
heard of an "armed neutrality," and of an "armed
peace"; but here is an armed negotiation.

The force employed in the negotiation naturally fruc-
tified in other force. Violence follows violence in new
. forms. Armed negotiation was changed to armed inter-
vention, being an act of war, all of which is placed
beyond question. There is repetition and reduplication
of testimony.

The swiftness of war appears in the telegram dated
at the Navy Department January 29, 1870, addressed to
Eear- Admiral Poor, at Key West. Here is this painful
dispatch :

" Proceed at once with the Severn and Dictator to Port-
au-Prince; communicate with our Consul there, and inform
the present Haytian authorities that this Government is de-
termined to protect the present Dominican Government with,
all its power. You will then proceed to Dominica, and use
your force to give the most ample protection to the Domini-
can Government against any Power attempting to interfere
with it. Visit Samana Bay and the capital, and see the United
States power and authority secure there. There must be no
failure in this matter. If the Haytians attack the Domini-
cans with their ships, destroy or capture them. See that
there is a proper force at both San Domingo City and
Samana.

" If Admiral Poor is not at Key West, this dispatch must
be forwarded to him without delay." *

i Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Seas., Senate, No. 34, p. 11.

58 SAN DOMINGO RESOLUTIONS.

" Proceed at once." Mark the warlike energy. What
then ? Inform the Haytian Government " that this
Government is determined to protect the present Do-
minican Government [the usurper Baez] with all its
pmuer." Strong words, and vast in scope ! Not only
the whole Navy of the United States, but all the power
of our Republic is promised to the usurper. At Domi-
nica, where the Admiral is to go next, he is directed to
use his force " to give the most ample protection to the
Dominican Government [the usurper Baez] against any
Power attempting to interfere with it." Then comes a
new direction. At Samana and the City of San Do-
mingo " see the United States power and authority se-
cure there." Here is nothing less than military occu-
pation. Pray, by what title ? Mark again the warlike
energy. And then giving to the war a new charac-
ter, the Admiral is told : " If the Haytians attack the
Dominicans with their ships, destroy or capture them."
Such is this many-shotted dispatch, which is like a mi-
trailleuse in death-dealing missives.

. This belligerent intervention in the affairs of another
country, with a declaration of war against the Black
Republic, all without any authority from Congress, or
any sanction under the Constitution, was followed by a
dispatch dated January 31, 1870, to Lieutenant-Com-
mander Allen, of the Swatara, with an armament of six
32-pounders, 4,500 pounds, and one 11-inch gun, where
is the breath of war. After hurrying the ship off to the
City of San Domingo, the dispatch says :

"If you find, when you get there, that the Dominican
Government require any assistance against the enemies of
that Republic, you will not hesitate to give it to them." l

1 Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 34, p. 15.

RECORD OF THE NAVY DEPARTMENT. 59

What is this but war, at the call of the usurper Baez,
against the enemies of his Government, whether domes-
tic or foreign ? Let the usurper cry out, and our flag is
engaged. Our cannon must fire, it may be upon Do-
minicans rising against the usurper, or it may be upon
Haytians warring on the usurper for their rights, or it
may be upon some other foreign power claiming rights.
The order is peremptory, leaving no discretion. The
assistance must be rendered. " You will not hesitate to
give it to them " : so says the order. On which I ob-
serve, This is war.

This was not enough. The Navy Department, by
still another order, dated February 9, 1870, addressed
to Commodore Green, of the ship Congress, with an
armament of fourteen 9-inch jguns and two 60-pound-
er rifles, enforces this same conduct. After mention-
ing the treaty, the order says :

""While that treaty is pending, the Government of the
United States has agreed to afford countenance and assistance
to the Dominican people against their enemies now in the island
and in revolution against the lawfully constituted Government,
and you will use the force at your command to resist any at-
tempts by the enemies of the Dominican Republic to invade
the Dominican territory, by land or sea, so far as your power
can reach them." l

Here again is belligerent intervention in Dominica,
with a declaration of war against the Black Eepublic,
included under the head "enemies of the Dominican
Eepublic," or perhaps it is a case of " running amuck,"
according to Malay example, for the sake of the usurper
Baez.

l Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 34, p. 12.

60 SAN DOMINGO RESOLUTIONS.

Thus much for the orders putting in motion the pow-
ers of war. I have set them forth in their precise words.
Soon I shall show wherein they offend International
Law and the Constitution. Meanwhile the case is not
complete without showing what was done under these
orders. Already the State Department has testified.
The Navy Department testifies in harmony with the
State Department. And here the record may be seen
under two heads, first, belligerent intervention in
Dominica, and, secondly, belligerent intervention in
Hayti.

BELLIGERENT INTERVENTION IN DOMINICA.

IN Dominica there was constant promise of protec-
tion and constant appeal for it, with recurring incidents,
showing the dependence of the usurper upon our naval
force. And here I proceed according to the order of
dates.

Rear- Admiral Poor, of the flag-ship Severn, reports
from the City of San Domingo, under date of March 12,
1870, that the President meaning the usurper Baez
informed him that he was obliged to keep a considerable
force against Cabral and Luperon, and then added, " If
annexation was delayed, it would be absolutely neces-
sary for him to call upon the United States Government
for pecuniar}'- aid." 1 Not content with our guns, the
usurper wanted our dollars. Next Lieutenant-Com-
mander Bunce, under date of March 21, 1870, reports
from Puerto Plata that " the authorities think that the
excitement has not yet passed, and that the presence of a
man-of-war here for a time will have a great moral effect" 2

1 Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Seas., Senate, No. 34, p. 17.
a Ibid, p. 19.

BELLIGERENT INTERVENTION IN DOMINICA. 61

The man-of-war becomes a preacher. The same offi-
cer, under date of March 24, 1870, reports a speech of
his own at Puerto Plata, that Rear- Admiral Poor " had
a heavy squadron about the island, and would drive him
[Luperon] out, probably, in doing so, destroying the
town and all the property in it" 1 And this was fol-
lowed, March 26, 1870, by formal notice from Lieuten-
ant-Commander Bunce to the British Vice-Consul at
Puerto Plata, in these terms :

" As to my objects here, one of them certainly is, and I de-
sire to accomplish it as plainly as possible, to inform the for-
eign residents here, that, if any such league or party is formed
among them, and, with or without their aid, Luperon, Cabral,
or any others hostile to the Dominican Government, should
get possession of this port, the naval forces of the United States
would retake it, and, in so doing, the foreign residents, as the
largest property-holders, as well as the most interested in the
business of the port, would be the greatest sufferers." 3

Here is the menace of war. The naval forces of the
United States will retake a port.

Meanwhile the work of protection proceeds. Rear-
Admiral Poor reports, under date of May 7, 1870:

" Upon my arrival there [ at San Domingo City], I found
it necessary, properly to protect the Dominican Government, to
dispatch one of the sloops I found there to the northwest
portion of the island and the other to Puerto Plata, intending,
as soon as able to do so, to dispatch one to Samana Bay and
to station the other off San Domingo City." *

Here is belligerent protection at four different points.

i Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 34, p. 19.
Ibid., p. 20. Ibid., p. 22.

62 SAN DOMINGO RESOLUTIONS.

Meanwhile the treaty for annexion, and also the treaty
for the lease of Samana, had both expired by lapse of
time March 29, 1870, while the treaty for annexion was
rejected by solemn vote June 30, 1870, so that no
treaty remained even as apology for the illegitimate
protection which had been continued at such cost to the
country. But this made no difference in the aid sup-
plied by our Navy. Nor was the Administration here
unadvised with regard to the constant dependence of
the usurper. Commodore Green reports from off San
Domingo City, under date of July 21, 1870:

" I am inclined to the opinion that a withdrawal of the
protection of the United States, and of the prospect of annex-
ation at some future time, would instantly lead to a revolu- "
tion, headed by Cabral, who would be supported by the ene-
mies of the present Government, and assisted by the Hay-
tians." 1

This is followed by a report from Lieutenant-Com-
mander Allen at Samana Bay, under date of August 28,
1870, announcing that he has received a communication
from "his Excellency, President Baez, requesting the
presence of a vessel on the north side of the island, on
account of an intended invasion by Cabral." 2 In the
communication, which is inclosed, the usurper says that
he " deems the presence of a ship-of-war in the Bay of
Manzanillo of immediate importance." 8 Cabral, it ap-
pears, was near this place. Other points are mentioned
to be visited.

Then follow other reports from Commander Irwin of
the Yantic, with inclosures from Baez, where the depend-

1 Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sees., Senate, No. 34, p. 23.
Ibid., pp. 23-24. Ibid., p. 24.

BELLIGERENT INTERVENTION IN DOMINICA. 63

ence of the usurper is confessed. In a letter from the
Executive Mansion at San Domingo City, under date
of August 30, 1870, he desires Commander Irwin to
"proceed to Tortuguero de Azua for a few hours, for
the purpose of transporting to this city the rest of
the Dominican battalion Eestauracion, as it is thought
convenient by the Government." l Upon which Com-
mander Irwin, under date of September 3, 1870, re-
marks :

" The President was anxious to add to the force at his dis-
posal in the City of San Domingo, as he feared an outbreak.
.... I acceded to his request, . . *. and on the 2d instant
landed sixty-five officers and men that we had brought from
Azua." 2

Here is a confession, showing again the part played
by our Navy. War-ships of the United States dance
attendance on the usurper, and save him from the out-
break of the people.

Then, again, under date of September 2, 1870, the
usurper declares "the necessity at present of a man-of-
war in this port, and that none would be more conven-
ient than the Yantic/0r the facility of entering the river
Ozama, awing to her size" 3 Thus not merely on the
coasts, but in a river, was our Navy invoked.

But this was not enough. Under date of October 8,
1870, the usurper writes from the Executive Residence
"to reiterate the necessity of the vessels now in that
bay [ Samana] coming to these southern coasts." 4 And
as late as January 8, 1871, Rear-Admiral Lee reports
from off San Domingo City, that delay in accomplishing

1 Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 34, p. 31.
3 Ibid., p. 26. Ibid., p. 81. * Ibid., p. 32.

64 SAN DOMINGO RESOLUTIONS.

annexion has, among other things, "risk of insurrec-
tion," l thus attesting the dependence of the usurper
upon our power. Such is the uniform story, where the
cry of the usurper is like the refrain of a ballad.

BELLIGERENT INTERVENTION IN HAYTI.

THE constant intervention in Dominica was supple-
mented by that other intervention in Hayti, when an
American admiral threatened war to the Black Eepublic.
Shame and indignation rise as we read the record. Al-
ready we know it from the State Department. Eear-
Admiral Poor, under date of February 12, 1870, reports
to the Navy Department his achievement. After an-
nouncing that the Severn, with an armament of fourteen
9 -inch guns and one 60 -pounder rifle, and the Dictator,
with an armament of two 15-inch guns, arrived at Port-
au-Prince the 9th instant, he narrates his call on the
Provisional President of Hayti, and how, after commu-
nicating the pendency of negotiations and the determi-
nation of the Government of the United States " with
its whole power" to prevent any interference on the
part of the Haytian or any other Government with that
of the Dominicans, (meaning the usurper Baez,) he
launched this declaration :

" Therefore, if any attack should be made upon the Do-
minicans [meaning the usurper Baez] during the said nego-
tiations, under the Haytian or any other flag, it would be
regarded as an act of hostility to the United States flag, and
would provoke hostility in return."

1 Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 34, p. 27.

BELLIGERENT INTERVENTION IN HAYTL 65

Such was his language in the Executive Mansion of
the President. The Bear-Admiral reports the digni-
fied reply of the President and Secretary of State,
who said :

" That, * while they were aware of their weakness, they
knew their rights, and would maintain them and their dignity
as far as they were able, and that they must be allowed to be
the judges of their own policy,' or words to that effect." l

Such words ought to have been to the Eear-Admiral
more than a broadside. How poor were his great guns
against this simple reproof ! The Black Republic spoke
well. The Eear-Admiral adds, tha^ he learned after-
ward, unofficially, " that the authorities were displeased
with what they considered a menace on the part of the
United States, accompanied with force." And was it
not natural that they should be displeased?

All this is bad enough from the official record ; but I
am enabled from another source, semi-official in charac-
ter, to show yet more precisely what occurred. I have
a minute account drawn up by the gentleman who acted
as interpreter on the occasion. The Eear-Admiral could
not speak French ; the President could not speak Eng-
lish. Instead of waiting upon the Secretary of State
and making his communication to this functionary, he
went at once to the Executive Mansion, with the officers
of his vessel and other persons, when, after announcing
to the President that he came to pay a friendly visit, he
said, that, " as a sailor, he would take the same oppor-
tunity to communicate instructions received from his
Government."

The President, justly surprised, said that he was not

l Executive Documents, 41st Cong., 3d Seas., Senate, No. 34, p. 14.

VOL. XIX. 5

66 SAN DOMINGO RESOLUTIONS.

aware that the Kear- Admiral had any official commu-
nication to make, otherwise the Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs would have been present, being the
proper party to receive it. The Secretary of State and
other members of the Provisional Government were
sent for, when the Rear- Admiral proceeded to make the
communication already reported, and at the same time
pointing to his great war-ships in the outside harbor,
plainly visible from the Executive Mansion, remarked,
that it could be seen he had power enough to enforce
his communication, and that besides he was expecting
other forces (and in fact two other war-ships soon ar-
rived, one of them a monitor) ; and then he announced,
that, " if any vessels under Haytian or other flags were
found in Dominican waters, he would sink or capture
them." Brave Rear- Admiral ! The interpreter, from
whose account I am drawing, says that the President
felt very sorry and humiliated by this language, espe-
cially when the Rear-Admiral referred to the strong
forces under his command, and he proceeded to reply:

" That Hayti, having the knowledge of her feebleness and
of her dignity, had taken note of the communication made in
the name of the United States ; that, under present circum-
stances, the Government of Hayti would not interfere in the
internal affairs of San Domingo, but the Government could
not prevent the sympathies of the Haytian people to be with
the Dominican patriots fighting against annexation."

Who will not say that in this transaction the Black
Republic appears better than the Rear- Admiral *

PRINCIPLE OF "EQUALITY OF NATIONS" VIOLATED. 67

TWO PROPOSITIONS ESTABLISHED.

SUCH is the testimony, establishing beyond question
the two propositions, first, that the usurper Baez was
maintained in power by our Navy to enable him to
carry out the sale of his country, and, secondly, that
further to assure this sale the neighbor Republic of
Hayti was violently menaced, all this being in breach
of Public Law, International and Constitutional

In considering how far this ^conduct is a violation of
International Law and of the Constitution of the United
States, I begin with the former.

GREAT PRINCIPLE OF "EQUALITY OF NATIONS".
VIOLATED.

INTERNATIONAL LAW is to nations what the National
Constitution is to our coequal States : it is the rule by
which they are governed. As among us every State
and also every citizen has an interest in upholding the
National Constitution, so has every nation and also
every citizen an interest in upholding International
Law. As well disobey the former as the latter. You
cannot do so in either case without disturbing the foun-
dations of peace and tranquillity. To insist upon the
recognition of International Law is to uphold civiliza-
tion in one of its essential securities. To vindicate In-
ternational Law is a constant duty, which is most em-
inent according to the rights in jeopardy.

Foremost among admitted principles of International
Law is the axiom, that all nations are equal, without
distinction of population, size, or power. Nor does In-
ternational Law know any distinction of color. As a

68 SAN DOMINGO RESOLUTIONS.

natural consequence, whatever is the rule for one is the
rule for all ; nor can we do to a thinly-peopled, small,
weak, or black nation what we would not do to a popu-
lous, large, strong, or white nation, nor what that na-
tion might not do to us. " Do unto others as you would
have them do unto you," is the plain law for all nations,
as for all men. The equality of nations is the first
principle of International Law, as the equality of men
is the first principle in our Declaration of Independence ;
and you may as well assail the one as the other. As
all men are equal before the Law, so are all nations.

This simple statement is enough ; but since this com-
manding principle has been practically set aside in the
operations of our Navy, I proceed to show how it is il-
lustrated by the authorities.

The equality of nations, like the equality of men, was
recognized tardily, under the growing influence of civ-
ilization. Not to the earlier writers, not even to the
wonderful Grotius, whose instinct for truth was so di-
vine, do we repair for the elucidation of this undoubted
rule. Our Swiss teacher, Vattel, prompted, perhaps, by
the experience of his own country, surrounded by more
powerful neighbors, was the first to make it stand forth
in its present character. His words, which are as re-
markable for picturesque force as for juridical accuracy,
state the whole case :

" Nations composed of men, and considered as so many
free persons living together in the state of Nature, are natu-
rally equal, and inherit from Nature the same obligations and
rights. Power or weakness does not in this respect produce
any difference. A dwarf is as much a man as a giant ; a
small republic is no less a sovereign state than the most
powerful kingdom. By a necessary consequence of that

PRINCIPLE OF "EQUALITY OF NATIONS" VIOLATED. 69

equality, whatever is lawful for one nation is equally lawful
for any other, and whatever is unjustifiable in the one is
equally so in the other." 1

Later authorities have followed this statement, with
some slight variety of expression, but with no diminu-
tion of its force. One of the earliest to reproduce it was
Sir William Scott, in one of his masterly judgments,
lending to it the vivid beauty of his style:

"A fundamental principle of Public Law is the perfect
equality and entire independence of all distinct states. Eel-
ative magnitude creates no distinction of right ; relative im-
becility, whether permanent or casual, gives no additional
right to the more powerful neighbor; and any advantage
seized upon that ground is mere usurpation. This is the
great foundation of Public Law, which it mainly concerns
the peace of mankind, both in their politic and private ca-
pacities, to preserve inviolate." a

The German Heffter states the rule more simply, but
with equal force :

" Nations, being sovereign or independent of each other,
treat together on a footing of complete equality. The most
feeble state has the same political rights as the strongest.
In other terms, each state exercises in their plenitude the
rights which result from its political existence and from its
participation in international association." 3

The latest English writers testify likewise. Here are
the words of Phillimore :

" The natural equality of states is the necessary compan-
ion of their independence, that primitive cardinal right

1 Law of Nations, (London, 1797,) Preliminaries, 18, 19.

Le Louis: 2 Dodson, R., 243.

Le Droit International, (Berlin et Paris, 1867,) 27.

70 SAN DOMINGO RESOLUTIONS.

upon, which the science of International Law is mainly built.
.... They are entitled, in their intercourse with other states,
to all the rights incident to a natural equality. No other
state is entitled to encroach upon this equality by arrogating
to itself peculiar privileges or prerogatives as to the manner
of their mutual intercourse." l

Twiss follows Phillimore, but gives to the rule a fresh
statement :

" The independence of a nation is absolute, and not sub-
ject to qualification ; so that nations, in respect of their in-
tercourse under the Common Law, are peers or equals

Power and weakness do not in this respect give rise to any

distinction It results from this equality, that whatever

is lawful for one nation is equally lawful for another, and
whatever is unjustifiable in the one is equally unjustifiable in
the other." *

In our own country, Chancellor Kent, a great au-
thority, gives the rule with perfect clearness and sim-
plicity :

" Nations are equal in respect to each other, and entitled
to claim equal consideration for their rights, whatever may be
their relative dimensions or strength, or however greatly they
may differ in government, religion, or manners. This perfect
equality and entire independence of all distinct states is a
fundamental principle of Public Law." 8

General Halleck, whose work is not surpassed by any
other in practical value, while quoting especially Vattel
and Sir William Scott, says with much sententiousness :

1 Commentaries upon International Law, (London, 1855,) Vol. II. pp.
33-34.

* Law of Nations : Rights and Duties in Time of Peace, 12, p. 11.

* Commentaries, Vol. I. p. 21.

PEINCIPLE OF "EQUALITY OF NATIONS" VIOLATED. 71

"All sovereign states, without respect to their relative
power, are, in the eye of International Law, equal, being en-
dowed with the same natural rights, bound by the same du-
ties, and subject to the same obligations." l

Thus does each authority reflect the others, while the
whole together present the Equality of Nations as a
guiding principle not to be neglected or dishonored.

The record already considered shows how this prin-
ciple has been openly defied by our Government in the
treatment of the Black Eepublic, first, in the menace
of war by Rear-Admiral Poor, and, secondly, in the
manner of the menace, being in substance and in
form. In both respects the Admiral did what he would
not have done to a powerful nation, what he would not
have done to any white nation, and what we should
never allow any nation to do to us.

Hayti was weak, and the gallant Admiral, rowing
ashore, pushed to the Executive Mansion, where, after
what he called " a friendly visit," he struck at the inde-
pendence of the Black Eepublic, pointing from the win-
dows of the Executive Mansion to his powerful arma-
ment, and threatening to employ it against the Haytian
capital or in sinking Haytian ships. For the present I
consider this unprecedented insolence only so far as it
was an offence against the Equality of Nations, and here
it may be tried easily. Think you that we should have
done this thing to England, France, or Spain ? Think
you that any foreign power could have done it to us ?
But if right in us toward Hayti, it would be right in
us toward England, France, or Spain ; and it would be
right in any foreign power toward us. If it were right

1 International Law, pp. 97 - 98.

72 SAN DOMINGO RESOLUTIONS.

in us toward Hayti, then might England, France, Spain,
or Hayti herself do the same to us. Imagine a foreign
fleet anchored off Alexandria, while the admiral, pulling
ashore in his boat, hurries to the Executive Mansion,
and then, after announcing a friendly visit, points to
his war-ships visible from the windows, and menaces
their thunder. Or to be more precise, suppose the Hay-
tian Navy to return the compliment here in the Poto-
mac. But just in proportion as we condemn any for-
eign fleet, including the Haytian Navy, doing this thing,
do we condemn ourselves. The case is clear. We did
not treat Hayti as our peer. The great principle of the
Equality of Nations was openly set at nought.

To extenuate this plain outrage, I have heard it said,
that, in our relations with Hayti, we are not bound by
the same rules of conduct applicable to other nations.
So I have heard ; and this, indeed, is the only possible
defence for the outrage. As in other days it was pro-
claimed that a black man had no rights which a white
man was bound to respect, so this defence assumes the
same thing of the Black Eepublic. But at last the
black man has obtained Equal Eights ; and so, I insist,
has the Black Eepublic. As well deny the one as the
other. By an Act of Congress, drawn by myself and
approved by Abraham Lincoln in the session of 1862,
diplomatic relations were established between the United
States and Hayti, and the President was expressly au-
thorized to appoint diplomatic representatives there.
At first we were represented by a Commissioner and
Consul- General; now it is by a Minister Eesident and
Consul-General. Thus, by Act of Congress and the ap-
pointment of a Minister, have we recognized the Equal
Eights of Hayti in the Family of Nations, and placed

BELLIGERENT INTERVENTION UNLAWFUL. 73

the Black Eepublic under the safeguard of that great
axiom of International Law which makes it impossible
for us to do unto her what we would not allow her to
do unto us. In harmony with the United States, the
"Almanach de Gotha," where is the authentic, if not
official, list of nations entitled to Equal Eights, contains
the name of Hayti. Thus is the Black Eepublic en-
rolled as an equal; and yet have we struck at this
equality. How often have I pleaded that all men are
equal before the Law! And now I plead that all
nations are equal before the Law, without distinction
of color.

BELLIGERENT INTERVENTION CONTRARY TO INTERNA-
TIONAL LAW.

FROM one violation of International Law I pass to
another. The proceedings already detailed show bel-
ligerent intervention, contrary to International Law.
Here my statement will be brief.

According to all the best authorities, in harmony
with reason, no nation has a right to interfere by bel-
ligerent intervention in the internal affairs of another,
and especially to take part in a civil feud, except under
conditions which are wanting here ; nor has it a right
to interfere by belligerent intervention between two in-
dependent nations. The general rule imposed by mod-
ern civilization is Non-intervention; but this rule is
little more than a scientific expression of that saying of
Philip de Comines, the famous minister of Louis the
Eleventh, " Our Lord God does not wish that one nation
should play the devil with another." Not to occupy
time with authorities, I content myself with some of

74 SAN DOMINGO RESOLUTIONS.

our own country, which are clear and explicit, and I
begin with George Washington, who wrote to Lafayette,
under date of December 25, 1798 :

" No Government ought to interfere -with the internal con-
cerns of another, except for the security of what is due to them-
telves." l

Wheaton lays down the same rule substantially, when
he says :

" Non-interference is the general rule, to which cases of
justifiable interference form exceptions, limited by the necessity
of each particular case." 2

Thus does Wheaton, like Washington, found inter-
vention in the necessity of the case. Evidently neither
thought of founding it on a scheme for the acquisition
of foreign territory.

In harmony with Washington and Wheaton, I cite
General Halleck, in his excellent work :

" Wars of intervention are to be justified or condemned
accordingly as they are or are not undertaken strictly as the
means of self-defence, and self -protection against the aggran-
dizements of others, and without reference to treaty obliga-
tions ; for, if wrong in themselves, the stipulations of a treaty
cannot make them right." 3

Then again Halleck says, in words applicable to the
present case :

" The invitation of one party to a civil war can afford no
right of foreign interference, as against the other party. The

1 Writings, ed. Sparks, Vol. XI. p. 382.

a Elements of International Law, ed. Dana, p. 120; ed. Lawrence, p. 132.

* International Law, p. 338.

BELLIGERENT INTERVENTION UNLAWFUL. 75

same reasoning holds good with respect to armed intervention,
whether between belligerent states or between belligerent
parties in the same state." 1

Armed Intervention, or, as I would say, Belligerent
Intervention, is thus defined by Halleck :

"Armed intervention consists in threatened or actual force,
employed or to be employed by one state in regulating or de-
termining the conduct or affairs of another. Such an em-
ployment of force is virtually a war, and must be justified or
condemned upon the same general principles as other wars." *

Applying these principles to existing facts already
set forth, it is easy to see that the belligerent interven-
tion of the United States in the internal affairs of Dom-
inica, maintaining the usurper Baez in power, especially
against Cabral, was contrary to acknowledged principles
of International Law, and that the belligerent interven-
tion between Dominica and Hayti was of the same char-
acter. Imagine our Navy playing the fantastic tricks
on the coast of France which it played on the coasts of
San Domingo, and then, still further, imagine it entering
the ports of France as it entered the ports of Hayti, and
you will see how utterly indefensible was its conduct.
In the capital of Hayti it committed an act of war
hardly less flagrant than that of England at the bom-
bardment of Copenhagen. Happily blood was not shed,
but there was an act of war. Here I refer to the au-
thorities already cited, and challenge contradiction.

To vindicate these things, whether in Dominica or in
Hayti, you must discard all acknowledged principles of
International Law, and join those who, regardless of

1 International Law, p. 339.
Ibid., p. 335.

76 SAN DOMINGO RESOLUTIONS.

rights, rely upon arms. Grotius reminds us of Achilles,
as described by Horace :

" Rights he spurns
As things not made for him, claims all by arms " ;

and he quotes Lucan also, who shows a soldier exclaim-
ing:

" Now, Peace and Law, I bid you both farewell."

The old Antigonus, who, when besieging a city, laughed
at a man who brought him a dissertation on Justice, and
Pompey, who exclaimed, " Am I, when in arms, to think
of the laws?" 1 these seem to be the models for our
Government on the coasts of San Domingo.

USURPATION OF WAR POWERS CONTRARY TO THE
CONSTITUTION.

THE same spirit which set at defiance great principles
of International Law, installing force instead, is equally
manifest in disregard of the Constitution of the United
States ; and here one of its most distinctive principles is
struck down. By the Constitution it is solemnly an-
nounced that to Congress is given the power "to de-
clare war." This allotment of power was made only
after much consideration, and in obedience to those
popular rights consecrated by the American Revolution.
In England, and in all other monarchies at the time,
this power was the exclusive prerogative of the Crown,
so that war was justly called " the last reason of kings."
The framers of our Constitution naturally refused to
vest this kingly prerogative in the President. Kings
were rejected in substance as in name. The One-Man

l See Grotius, De Jure Belli et Pads, tr. Whewell, (Cambridge, 1853,)
Prolegomena, pp. xxxix - xl.

USURPATION OF WAR POWERS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 77

Power was set aside, and this kingly prerogative placed
under the safeguard of the people, as represented in that
highest form of national life, an Act of Congress. No
other provision in the Constitution is more distinctive,
or more worthy of veneration. I do not go too far,
when I call it an essential element of Republican In-
stitutions, happily discovered by our fathers.

Our authoritative commentator, Judge Story, has ex-
plained the origin of this provision, and his testimony
confirms the statement I have made. After remarking
that the power to declare war is " not only the highest
sovereign prerogative, but that it is in its own nature and
effects so critical and calamitous that it requires the ut-
most deliberation and the successive review of all the
councils of the nation," the learned author remarks with
singular point, that " it should be difficult in a Republic
to declare war," and that, therefore, " the cooperation of
all the branches of the legislative power ought upon
principle to be required in this, the highest act of legisla-
tion " ; and he even goes so far as to suggest still greater
restriction, " as by requiring a concurrence of two thirds
of both Houses." 1 There is no such conservative re-
quirement ; but war can be declared only by a majority
of both Houses with the approbation of the President.
There must be the embodied will of the Legislative and
the Executive, in other words, of Congress and the
President. Not Congress alone, without the President,
can declare war; nor can the President alone, without
Congress. Both must concur ; and here is the triumph
of Republican Institutions.

But this distinctive principle of our Constitution and
new-found safeguard of popular rights has been set at

1 Commentaries on the Constitution, 1166. See also 1512.

78 SAN DOMINGO RESOLUTIONS.

nought by the President ; or rather, in rushing to the
goal of his desires, he has overleaped it, as if it were
stubble.

In harmony with the whole transaction is the apol-
ogy, which insists that the President may do indirectly
what he cannot do directly, that he may, according to
old Polonius, " by indirections find directions out," in
short, that, though he cannot declare war directly, he
may indirectly. We are reminded of the unratified
treaty, with its futile promise "against foreign interpo-
sition," that is, with the promise of the War Powers
of our Government set in motion by the President alone,
without an Act of Congress. Here are the precise
terms :

"The people of the Dominican Republic shall, in the
shortest possible time, express, in a manner conformable to
their laws, their will concerning the cession herein provided
for ; and the United States shall, until such expression shall
be had, protect the Dominican Republic against foreign inter-
position, in order that the national expression may be free." l

Now nothing can be clearer than that this provision,
introduced on the authority of the President alone, was
beyond his powers, and therefore Irutum fulmen, a mere
wooden gun, until after the ratification of the treaty.
Otherwise the President alone might declare war, with-
out an Act of Congress, doing indirectly what he cannot
do directly, and thus overturning that special safeguard
which places under the guardianship of Congress what
Story justly calls "the highest sovereign prerogative."

Here we meet another distinctive principle of our

1 Treaty, Art. IV. : Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate,
No. 17, p. 99.

USURPATION OF WARJPOWEKS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 79

Constitution. As the power to declare war is lodged in
Congress with the concurrence of the President, so is
the power to make a treaty lodged in the President with
the concurrence of two thirds of the Senate. War is
declared only by Congress and the President; a treaty
is made only by the President and two thirds of the
Senate. As the former safeguard was new, so was the
latter. In England and all other monarchies at the
time, the treaty-making power was a kingly prerogative,
like the power to declare war. The provision in our
Constitution, requiring the participation of the Senate,
was another limitation of the One-Man Power, and a
new contribution to Eepublican Institutions.

" The Federalist," in an article written by Alexander
Hamilton, thus describes the kingly prerogative :

" The king of Great Britain is the sole and absolute repre-
sentative of the nation in all foreign transactions. He can
of his own accord make treaties of peace, commerce, alliance,

and of every other description Every jurist of that

kingdom, and every other man acquainted with its Constitu-
tion, knows, as an established fact, that the prerogative of
making treaties exists in the Crown in its utmost plenitude ;
and that the compacts entered into by the royal authority
have the most complete legal validity and perfection, independ-
ent of any other sanction." l

Such was the well-known kingly prerogative which
our Constitution rejected. Here let " The Federalist "
speak again:

"There is no comparison between the intended power of
the President and the actual power of the British sovereign.

1 Federalist, No. LXIX.

80 SAN DOMINGO RESOLUTIONS.

The one can perform alone what the other can only do with
the concurrence of a branch of the Legislature. " l

Then, again, after showing that a treaty is a contract
with a foreign nation, having the force of law, "The
Federalist " proceeds :

" The history of human conduct does not warrant that ex-
alted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in
a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a
kind as those which concern its intercourse with the rest of
the world to the sole disposal of a magistrate created and cir-
cumstanced as would be a President of the United States" 2

Thus does this contemporary authority testify against
handing over to " the sole disposal " of the President the
delicate and momentous question in the unratified
treaty.

Following "The Federalist" is the eminent commen-
tator already cited, who insists that " it is too much to
expect that a free people would confide to a single mag-
istrate, however respectable, the sole authority to act con-
clusively, as well as exclusively, upon the subject of
treaties " ; and that, " however proper it may be in a
monarchy, there is no American statesman but must
feel that such a prerogative in an American President
would be inexpedient and dangerous," that " it would
be inconsistent with that wholesome jealousy which all
republics ought to cherish of all depositaries of power " ;
and then he adds :

" The check which acts upon the mind, from the considera-
tion that what is done is but preliminary, and requires the as-
sent of other independent minds to give it a legal conclusive-

l Federalist, No. LXIX. Ibid., No. LXXV.

USURPATION OF WAR POWERS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 81

ness, is a restraint which awakens caution and compels to
deliberation." l

The learned author then dwells with pride on the re-
quirement of the Constitution, which, while confiding
the power to the Executive Department, "guards it
from serious abuse by placing it under the ultimate
superintendence of a select body of high character and
high responsibility " ; and then, after remarking that
" the President is the immediate author and finisher of
all treaties," he concludes, in decisive words, that " no
treaty so formed becomes binding upon the country, un-
less it receives the deliberate assent of two thirds of
the Senate." 2

Nothing can be more positive. Therefore, even at
the expense of repetition, I insist, that, as the power to
declare war is under the safeguard of Congress with the
concurrence of the President, so is the power to make a
treaty in the President with the concurrence of two
thirds of the Senate, but the act of neither becomes
binding without this concurrence. Thus, on grounds of
authority, as well as of reason, is it clear that the un-
dertaking of the President to employ the War Powers
without the authority of Congress was void, and every
employment of these War Powers in pursuance there-
of was a usurpation.

If the President were a king, with the kingly prerog-
ative either to declare war or to make treaties, he might
do what he has done ; but being only President, with
the limited powers established by the Constitution, he
cannot do it. The assumption in the Dominican treaty

1 Commentaries on the Constitution, 1506.
a Ibid., 1507.
VOL. xix. 6

82 SAN DOMINGO RESOLUTIONS.

is exceptional and abnormal, being absolutely without
precedent. The treaty with France in 1803 for the ces-
sion of Louisiana contained no such assumption; nor
did the treaty with Spain in 1819 for the cession of
Florida ; nor did the treaty with Mexico in 1848, by
which the title to Texas and California was assured ;
nor did the treaty with Mexico in 1853, by which new
territory was obtained ; nor did the treaty with Russia
in 1867 for the cession of her possessions in North
America. In none of these treaties was there any such
assumption of power. The Louisiana treaty stipulated
that possession should be taken by the United States
" immediately after the ratification of the present treaty
by the President of the United States, and in case that
of the First Consul shall have been previously ob-
tained." 1 The Florida treaty stipulated "six months
after the exchange of the ratification of this treaty, or
sooner, if possible." 2 But these stipulations, by which
possession on our part, with corresponding responsibili-
ties, was adjourned till after the exchange of ratifications,
were simply according to the dictate of reason, in har-
mony with the requirement of our Constitution.

The case of Texas had two stages : first, under an un-
ratified treaty ; and, secondly, under a Joint Resolution
of Congress. What was done under the latter had the
concurrence of Congress and the President ; so that the
inchoate title of the United States was created by Act
of Congress, in plain contradiction to the present case,
where the title, whatever it may be, is under an unrati-
fied treaty, and is created by the President alone. Here
is a manifest difference, not to be forgotten.

1 Treaty, Art. V. : Statutes at Large, Vol. VIII. p. 202.
* Treaty, Art. VH. : Ibid., p. 258.

USUKPATION OF WAR POWERS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 83

During the pendency of the treaty, there was an at-
tempt by John Tyler, aided by his Secretary of State,
John C. Calhoun, to commit the United States to the
military support of Texas. It was nothing but an at-
tempt. There was no belligerent intervention or act of
war, but only what Benton calls an " assumpsit " by
Calhoun. On this " assumpsit " the veteran Senator, in
the memoirs of his Thirty Years in the Senate, breaks
forth in these indignant terms :

" As to secretly lending the Army and Navy of the United
States to Texas to fight Mexico while we were at peace with
her, it would be a crime against God and man and our own
Constitution, for which heads might be brought to the block,
if Presidents and their Secretaries, like Constitutional Kings
and Ministers, should be held capitally responsible for capital
crimes." *

The indignant statesman, after exposing the uncon-
stitutional charlatanry of the attempt, proceeds :

" And that no circumstance of contradiction or folly should
be wanting to crown this plot of crime and imbecility, it so
happened, that, on the same day that our new Secretary here
was giving his written assumpsit to lend the Army and Navy
to fight Mexico while we were at peace with her, the agent
Murphy was communicating to the Texan Government, in
Texas, the refusal of Mr. Tyler, through Mr. Nelson, to do so,
because of its unconstitutionally" 2

Mr. Nelson, Secretary of State ad interim, wrote Mr.
Murphy, our Minister in Texas, under date of March
11, 1844, that " the employment of the Army or Navy

l Thirty Years' View, Vol. II. p. 642.
Ibid., p. 643.

84 SAN DOMINGO RESOLUTIONS.

against a foreign power with which the United States
are at peace is not within the competency of the Presi-
dent." !

Again Benton says :

"The engagement to fight Mexico for Texas, while we
were at peace with Mexico, was to make war with Mexico !
a piece of business which belonged to the Congress, and which
should have been referred to them, and which, on the con-
trary, was concealed from them, though in session and pres-
ent." a

In the face of this indignant judgment, already the
undying voice of history, the " assumpsit " of John C.
Calhoun will not be accepted as a proper example for a
Eepublican President. But there is not a word of that
powerful utterance by which this act is forever blasted
that is not strictly applicable to the " assumpsit " in the
case of Dominica. If an engagement to fight Mexico
for Texas, while we were at peace with Mexico, was
nothing less than war with Mexico, so the present en-
gagement to fight Hayti for Dominica, while we are at
peace with Hayti, is nothing less than war with Hayti.
Nor is it any the less " a crime against God and man
and our own Constitution " in the case of Hayti than in
the case of Mexico. But the present case is stronger
than that which aroused the fervid energies of Benton.
The "assumpsit" here has been followed by belligerent
intervention and acts of war.

President Polk, in his Annual Message of December,
1846, paid homage to the true principle, when he an-
nounced that "the moment the terms of annexation

1 Senate Documents, 28th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 349, p. 10.

2 Thirty Years' View, Vol. II. p. 643.

USURPATION OF WAR POWERS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 85

offered by the United States were accepted by Texas,
the latter became so far a part of our own country as
to make it our duty to afford protection and defence." 1
And accordingly he directed those military and naval
movements which ended in war with Mexico. But it
will be observed here that these movements were con-
ditioned on the acceptance by Texas of the terms of
annexion definitively proposed by the United States,
while our title had been created by Act of Congress,
and not by the President alone.

Therefore, according to the precedents of our his-
tory, reinforced by reason and authority, does the
"assumpsit" of the treaty fail. I forbear from char-
acterizing it. My duty is performed, if I exhibit it to
the Senate.

But this story of a violated Constitution is not yet
complete. Even admitting some remote infinitesimal
semblance of excuse or apology during the pendency of
the treaty, all of which I insist is absurd beyond ques-
tion, though not entirely impossible in a quarter un-
used to constitutional questions and heeding them little,
conceding that the " assumpsit " inserted in the treaty
by the Secretary of State had deceived the President
into the idea that he possessed the kingly prerogative
of declaring war at his own mere motion, and wishing
to deal most gently even with an undoubted usurpation
of the kingly prerogative, so long as the Secretary of
State, sworn counsellor of the President, supplied the
formula for the usurpation, ( and you will bear witness
that I have done nothing but state the case,) it is
hard to hold back, when the same usurpation is openly
prolonged after the Senate had rejected the treaty on

1 Executive Documents, 29th Cong. 2d Sess., H. of R, No. 4, p. 15.

86 SAN DOMINGO RESOLUTIONS.

which the exercise of the kingly prerogative was founded,
and when the " assumpsit " devised by the Secretary of
State had passed into the limbo of things lost on earth.
Here there is no remote infinitesimal semblance of ex-
cuse or apology, nothing, absolutely nothing. The
usurpation pivots on nonentity, always excepting the
kingly will of the President, which constitutionally is a
nonentity. The great artist of Bologna, in a much ad-
mired statue, sculptured Mercury as standing on a puff
of air. The President has not even a puff of air to
stand on.

Nor is there any question with regard to the facts.
Saying nothing of the lapse of the treaty on the 29th
March, 1870, being the expiration of the period for the
exchange of ratifications, I refer to its formal rejection
by the Senate, Jane 30, 1870, which was not unknown
to the President. In the order of business the rejection
was communicated to him, while it became at once mat-
ter of universal notoriety. Then, by way of further fix-
ing the President with this notice, I refer to his own
admission in the Annual Message of December last,
when he announces that "during the last session of
Congress a treaty for the annexation of the Eepublic of
San Domingo to the United States failed to receive the
requisite two-thirds of the Senate," and then, after de-
nouncing the rejection as "folly," he proceeds as fol-
lows :

" My suggestion is, that by Joint Resolution of the two
Houses of Congress the Executive be authorized to appoint a
Commission to negotiate a treaty with the authorities of San
Domingo for the acquisition of that island, and that an appro-
priation be made to defray the expenses of such Commission.
The question may theu be determined, either by the action of

USURPATION OF WAR POWERS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 87

the Senate upon the treaty, or the joint action of the two
Houses of Congress upon a resolution of annexation, as in
the case of the acquisition of Texas."

Thus by the open declaration of the President was
the treaty rejected, while six months after the rejection
he asks for a Commission to negotiate a new treaty, and
an appropriation to defray the expenses of the Commis-
sion ; and not perceiving the inapplicability of the Tex-
as precedent, he proposes to do the deed by Joint Keso-
lution of Congress. And yet during this intermediate
period, when there was no unratified treaty extant, the
same belligerent intervention has been proceeding, the
same war-ships have been girdling the island with their
guns, and the same naval support has been continued to
the usurper Baez, all at great cost to the country and
by the diversion of our naval forces from other places
of duty, while the Constitution has been dismissed out
of sight like a discharged soldier.

Already you have seen how this belligerent interven-
tion proceeded after the rejection of the treaty ; how on
the 21st July, 1870, Commodore Green reported that "a
withdrawal of the protection of the United States and
of the prospect of annexation at some future time would
instantly lead to a revolution headed by Cabral " ; how
on the 28th August, 1870, Lieutenant Commander Allen
reported Baez as "requesting the presence of a vessel on
the north side of the island on account of an intended
invasion by Cabral " ; how at the same time the usurper
cries out that he " deems the presence of a ship-of-war
in the Bay of Manzanillo of immediate importance";
how on the 3d September, 1870, Commander Irwin re-
ported that Baez " feared an outbreak," and appealed to
the Commander to " bring him some of his men that

88 SAN DOMINGO RESOLUTIONS.

were at Azua," which the obliging Commander did ; how
under date of September 2, 1870, the usurper, after de-
claring the necessity of a man-of-war at the port of San
Domingo, says that " none would be more convenient
than the Yautic for the facility of entering the river
Ozama, owing to her size " ; and how again under date
of October 8, 1870, the usurper writes still another let-
ter " to reiterate the necessity of the vessels now in that
bay [Samana] coming to these southern coasts." All
these things you have seen, attesting constantly our bel-
ligerent intervention and the maintenance of Baez in
power by our Navy, which became his body-guard and
omnipresent upholder, and all after the rejection of the
treaty. I leave them to your judgment without one
word of comment, reminding you only that no President
is entitled to substitute his kingly will for the Constitu-
tion of our country.

In curious confirmation of the first conclusion from
the official document, the letter of Captain Temple to
Mr. Wade should not be forgotten. This letter has
found its way into the papers, and if not genuine, it
ought to be. It purports to be dated, Tennessee, Azua
Bay, February 24, 1871. Here is the first paragraph:

" I understand that several of the gentlemen belonging to
the expedition are to start to-morrow overland for Port-au-
Prince. It may not have occurred to these gentlemen that
by so doing they will virtually place themselves in the posi-
tion of spies, and if they are taken by Cabral's people, they
can be hung to the nearest tree by sentence of a drum-head
court-martial, according to all the rules of civilized warfare.
For they belong to a nation that, through the orders of its Ex-
ecutive to the naval vessels here, has chosen to take part in the
internal conflicts of this country ; they come directly from the

SUMMARY. 89

head-quarters of Cabral's enemies ; they are without arms, uni-
form, or authority of any kind for being in a hostile region.
They are, in fact, spies. They go expressly to learn every-
thing connected with the enemy's country, and their obser-
vations are intended for publication, and thus indirectly to be
reported back to President Baez. Surely Cabral would have
a right to prevent this, if he can."

It will be seen that the gallant Captain does not hesi-
tate to recognize the existing rights of Cabral under the
Laws of War, and to warn against any journey by mem-
bers of the Commission across the island to Hayti, as,
if taken by Cabral's people, they could be hung to the
nearest tree by sentence of drum-head court-martial,
" according to all the rules of civilized warfare " ; and
the Captain gives the reason: "For they belong to a na-
tion that, through the orders of its Executive to the
naval vessels here, has chosen to take part in the inter-
nal conflicts of this country." Here is belligerent inter-
vention openly recognized by the gallant Captain, and
without the authority of Congress. If the gallant Cap-
tain wrote the letter, he showed himself a master of In-
ternational Law whom Senators might do well to follow.
If he did not write it, the instructive jest will at least
relieve the weariness of this discussion.

SUMMARY.

MR. PRESIDENT, as I draw to a close, allow me to re-
peat the very deep regret with which I make this expos-
ure. Most gladly would I avoid it. Controversy, es-
pecially at my time of life, has no attraction for me ;
but I have been reared in the school of duty, and now,
as of old, I cannot see wrong without trying to arrest it.

90 SAN DOMINGO RESOLUTIONS.

I plead now, as I have often pleaded before, for Justice
and Peace.

In the evidence adduced I have confined myself care-
fully to public documents, not travelling out of the record.
Dispatches, naval orders, naval reports, these are the
unimpeachable authorities. And all these have been
officially communicated to the Senate, are now printed
by its order, accessible to all On this unanswerable
and cumulative testimony, where each part confirms the
rest, and the whole has the harmony of truth, I present
this transgression. And here it is not I who speak, but
the testimony.

Thus stands the case. International Law has been
violated in two of its commanding rules, one securing
the Equality of Nations, and the other providing against
Belligerent Intervention, while a distinctive funda-
mental principle of the Constitution, by which the Presi-
dent is deprived of a kingly prerogative, is disregard-
ed, and this very kingly prerogative is asserted by the
President. This is the simplest statement. Looking
still further at the facts, we see that all this great diso-
bedience has for its object the acquisition of an outlying
tropical island, with large promise of wealth, and that
in carrying out this scheme our Kepublic has forcibly
maintained a usurper in power that he might sell his
country, and has dealt a blow at the independence of
the Black Republic of Hayti, which, besides being a
wrong to that Republic, was an insult to the African
race. And all this has been done by kingly preroga-
tive alone, without the authority of an Act of Congress.
If such a transaction, many-headed in wrong, can es-
cape judgment, it is difficult to see what securities re-
main. What other sacred rule of International Law

SUMMARY. 91

may not be violated ? What other foreign nation may
not be struck at ? What other belligerent menace
may not be hurled ? What other kingly prerogative
may not be seized ?

On another occasion I showed how these wrongful
proceedings had been sustained by the President beyond
all example, but in a corresponding spirit. Never be-
fore has there been such Presidential intervention in the
Senate as we have been constrained to witness. Presi-
dential visits to the Capitol, with appeals to Senators,
have been followed by assemblies at the Executive
Mansion, also with appeals to Senators ; and who can
measure the pressure of all kinds by himself or agents,
especially through the appointing power, all to secure
the consummation of this scheme ? In harmony with
this effort was the Presidential Message, where, while
charging the Senate with "folly" in rejecting the treaty,
we are gravely assured that by the proposed acquisition
" our large debt abroad is ultimately to be extinguished,"
thus making San Domingo the pack-horse of our vast
load.

Then, responding to the belligerent menace of his
Admiral, the President makes a kindred menace by pro-
posing nothing less than the acquisition of " the island
of San Domingo," thus adding the Black Republic to
his scheme. The innocent population there were star-
tled. Their Minister here protested. Nor is it unnat-
ural that it should be so. Suppose the Queen of Eng-
land, in her speech at the opening of Parliament, had
proposed in formal terms the acquisition of the United
States ; or suppose Louis Napoleon, in his speech at the
opening of the Chambers, during the Mexican War,
while the French forces were in Mexico, had coolly pro-

92 SAN DOMINGO RESOLUTIONS.

posed the acquisition of that portion of the United
States adjoining Mexico and stretching to the Atlantic,
and, in support of his proposition, had set forth the pro-
ductiveness of the soil, the natural wealth that abounded
there, and wound up by announcing that out of this
might be paid the French debt abroad, which was to be
saddled upon the coveted territory. Suppose such a
proposition by Louis Napoleon or by the English Queen,
made in formal speech to Chambers or Parliament, what
would have been the feeling in our country ? Nor would
that feeling have been diminished by the excuse that
the offensive proposition crept into the speech by acci-
dent. Whether by accident or design, it would attest
small consideration for our national existence. But the
Haytians love their country as we love ours ; especially
are they resolute for national independence. All this
is shown by the reports which reach us now, even if
their whole history did not attest it.

The language of the President in charging the Senate
with " folly " was not according to approved precedents.
Clearly this is not a proper term to be employed by one
branch of the Government with regard to another, least
of all by the President with regard to the Senate.
Folly, Sir ! Was it folly, when the Senate refused to
sanction proceedings by which the Equal Eights of the
Black Republic were assailed ? Was it folly, not to
sanction hostilities against the Black Republic without
the authority of Congress ? Was it folly, not to sanc-
tion belligerent intervention in a foreign country with-
out the authority of Congress ? Was it folly, not to
sanction a usurpation of the War Powers under the
Constitution ? According to the President, all this was
folly in the Senate. Let the country judge.

PRESENT DUTY. 93

Thus do we discern, whether on the coasts of San
Domingo or here at Washington, the same determina-
tion, with the same disregard of great principles, as also
the same recklessness toward the people of Hayti, who
have never injured us.

PRESENT DUTY.

IN view of these things, the first subject of inquiry
is not soil, climate, productiveness, and possibilities of
wealth, but the exceptional and abnormal proceedings
of our own Government. This inquiry is essentially
preliminary in character. Before considering the treaty
or any question of acquisition, we must at least put our-
selves right as a nation ; nor do I see how this can be
done without retracing our steps, and consenting to act
in subordination to International Law and the Constitu/-
tion of the United States.

Beside the essential equity of such submission, and
the moral dignity it would confer upon the Kepublic,
which rises when it stoops to Law, there are two other
reasons of irresistible force at this moment. I need not
remind you that the Senate is now occupied in consid-
ering how to suppress lawlessness within our own bor-
ders and to save the African race from outrage. Surely
our efforts at home must be weakened by the drama we
are now playing abroad. Pray, Sir, with what face can
we insist upon obedience to Law and respect for the
African race, while we are openly engaged in lawless-
ness on the coasts of San Domingo and outrage upon
the African race represented by the Black Republic ?
How can we expect to put down the Ku-Klux at the
South, when we set in motion another proceeding kin-

94 SAN DOMINGO RESOLUTIONS.

dred in constant insubordination to Law and Constitu-
tion ? Differing in object, the two are identical in this
insubordination. One strikes at national life and the
other at individual life, while both strike at the African
race. One molests a people, the other a community.
Lawlessness is the common element. But it is difficult
to see how we can condemn, with proper, whole-hearted
reprobation, our own domestic Ku-Klux, with its fear-
ful outrages, while the President puts himself at the
head of a powerful and costly proceeding operating
abroad in defiance of International Law and the Con-
stitution of the United States. These are questions
which I ask with sorrow, and only in obedience to that
truth which is the requirement of this debate. Nor
should I do otherwise than fail in justice to the occa-
sion, if I did not declare my unhesitating conviction,
that, had the President been so inspired as to bestow
upon the protection of Southern Unionists, white and
black, one half, nay, Sir, one quarter, of the time, money,
zeal, will, personal attention, personal effort, and per-
sonal intercession, which he has bestowed on his at-
tempt to obtain half an island in the Caribbean Sea, our
Southern Ku-Klux would have existed in name only,
while tranquillity reigned everywhere within our bor-
ders. [Applause in the galleries.]

THE VICE-PRESIDENT. The Senator from Massachusetts
will suspend. The Chair cannot consent that there shall
be manifestations of approval or disapproval in the galleries ;
and he reprehends one as promptly as the other. If they are
repeated, the Chair must enforce the order of the Senate.
The Senator from Massachusetts will resume.

MR. SUMNER. Another reason for retracing the false

PRESENT DUTY. 95

steps already taken will be found in our duty to the
African race, of whom there are four millions within
our borders, recognized as equal before the Law. To
these new-found fellow-citizens, once degraded and
trampled down, are we bound by every sentiment of
justice ; nor can we see their race dishonored anywhere
through our misconduct. How vain are professions in
their behalf, if we set the example of outrage ! How
vain to expect their sympathy and cooperation in the
support of the National Government, if the President,
by his own mere will, and in the plenitude of kingly
prerogative, can strike at the independence of the Black
Eepublic, and degrade it in the Family of Nations ! All
this is a thousand times wrong. It is a thousand times
impolitic also ; for it teaches the African race that they
are only victims for sacrifice.

Now, Sir, as I desire the suppression of the Ku-Klux
wherever it shows itself, and as I seek the elevation of
the African face, I insist that the Presidential scheme,
which instals a new form of lawlessness on the coasts of
San Domingo, and which at the same time insults the
African race represented in the Black Eepublic, shall
be arrested. I speak now against that lawlessness on
the coasts of San Domingo, of which the President is
the head ; and I speak also for the African race, which
the President has trampled down. Is there any Sena-
tor in earnest against the Ku-Klux ? Let him arrest
the present lawlessness on the coasts of San Domingo.
Is there any Senator ready at all times to seek the ele-
vation of the African race ? Here is the occasion for
his best efforts.

On the question of acquisition I say nothing to-day,
only alluding to certain points involved. Sometimes it

96 SAN DOMINGO RESOLUTIONS.

is insisted that emigrants will hurry in large numbers
to this tropical island when once annexed, and thus
swell its means ; but this allegation forgets, that, accord-
ing to the testimony of History, peaceful emigration
travels with the sun on parallels of latitude, and not on
meridians of longitude, mainly following the isothermal
line, and not turning off at right-angles, whether North
or South. Sometimes it is insisted that it will be bet-
ter for the people of this island, if annexed to our Re-
public; but this allegation forgets the transcendent
question, Whether it is better for them, better for the
African race, better for Civilization, that the Black Re-
public should be absorbed out of sight, instead of being
fostered into a successful example of self-government
for the redemption of the race, not only on the Carib-
bean islands, but on the continent of Africa ? Then,
again, arises that other question, Whether we will as-
sume the bloody hazards involved in this business, as it
has been pursued, with the alternative of expenditures
for war-ships and troops, causing most painful anxieties,
while the land of Toussaint L'Ouverture listens to the
constant whisper of Independence ? And there is still
that other question of debts and obligations, acknowl-
edged and unacknowledged, with an immense claim by
Hayti and an unsettled boundary, which I have already
called a bloody lawsuit.

Over all is that other question, Whether we will
begin a system, which, first fastening upon Dominica,
must, according to the admission of the plenipotentiary
Fabens made to myself, next take Hayti, and then in
succession the whole tropical group of the Caribbean
Sea, so that we are now to determine if all the islands
of the West Indies shall be a component part of our

PRESENT DUTY. 97

Republic, helping to govern us, while the African race
is dispossessed of its natural home in this hemisphere.
No question equal in magnitude, unless it be that of
Slavery, has arisen since the days of Washington.

These questions I state only. Meanwhile to my
mind there is something better than belligerent inter-
vention and acts of war with the menace of absorption
at untold cost of treasure. It is a sincere and humane
effort on our part, in the spirit of peace, to reconcile
Hayti and Dominica, and to establish tranquillity
throughout the island. Let this be attempted, and our
Eepublic will become an example worthy of its name
and of the civilization which it represents, while Re-
publican Institutions have new glory. The blessings of
good men will attend such an effort ; nor can the smile
of Heaven be wanting.

And may we not justly expect the President to unite
in such a measure of peace and good-will? He that
ruleth his spirit is greater than he that taketh a city ;
and so the President, ruling his spirit in subjection to
the humane principles of International Law and the
Constitution of his country, will be greater than if he
had taken all the islands of the sea.

The Commission appointed under the Joint Resolution visited San
Domingo, and their Report, which was favorable to the proposed an-
nexion, the President communicated to Congress ; but no further ac-
tion was taken to carry the scheme into effect.

VOL. XIX. 7

PERSONAL RELATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT
AND SECRETARY OF STATE.

AN EXPLANATION IN REPLY TO AN ASSAULT.

STATEMENT PREPARED FOR PRESENTATION IN THE SENATE,
MARCH, 1871.

Si rixa est, ubi tn pulsas, ego vapulo tantum.
Stat contra, starique jubet ; parere neeesse est.
Nam quid agas, cum te furiosus cogat, et idem
Fortior ?

JUVENAL, Sat. III. 289-92.

TO THE READER.

THIS statement was prepared in March, shortly after the debate in
the Senate, but was withheld at that time, from unwillingness to take
part in the controversy, while able friends regarded the question of
principle involved as above every personal issue. Yielding at last to
various pressure, Mr. Sumner concluded to present it at the recent
called session of the Senate, but the Treaty with Great Britain and the
case of the Newspaper Correspondents were so engrossing as to leave no
time for anything else.

WASHINGTON, June, 1871.

NOTE.

WITH the failure of an opportunity for the presentation of the
proposed statement in the Senate Mr. Sumner's indisposition to appeal
to the public returned with increased strength, manifested, after print-
ing, by limiting the communication of copies to personal friends, with
the inscription, " Unpublished, private and confidential, not to go
out of Mr. 's hands. "

Says one to whom it was thus confided: "I frequently urged him
afterwards to make it public. His reply was, in substance, that he
should not do it for personal vindication merely ; that, so far as Mr.
Motley was concerned, he thought the matter stood well enough before
the public ; but if the time should come when the ends of justice
required its publication, he should remove the injunction of secrecy.
While he lived I respected his injunction. After his death I felt that
justice to his memory not only justified, but required me to make the

' Explanation ' public Accordingly, after conferring with Mr.

Whitelaw Reid, of the 'New York Tribune,' I sent it to him, and it
was published in that journal of April 6, 1874." F. W. BIRD, In-
troductory to his pamphlet edition, Boston and New York, 1878.

The seal having been thus broken, there can obviously no longer be
question as to the propriety of including an article of such high inter-
est and importance in a collection of Mr. Sumner's Works ; and it ac-
cordingly here follows in due course.

As one consequence of the leading part taken by Mr. Stunner in op-
position to the scheme for the annexation of San Domingo to the United
States, the friends of that scheme formed the determination to depose
him from the influential position long held by him as Chairman of the
Committee on Foreign Relations. In pursuance of this determination,
at the opening of the Session of 1871, on a vote, March 10th, to pro-
ceed to the election of the Standing Committees, Mr. Howe, of Wiscon-
sin, as the organ of a Senatorial Caucus on the subject, sent to the Chair
a list which had been agreed upon, with the name of Mr. Cameron, of
Pennsylvania, substituted for that of Mr. Sumner, at the head of the
Committee in question, alleging, as the reason for this change, "that
the personal relations existing between the Senator from Massachusetts
and the President of the United States and the head of the State De-
partment were. such as precluded all social intercourse between them."
Thereupon ensued the debate referred to in the prefatory note to the
following paper, and characterized in the text as Mr. Sumner's "trial
before the Senate on articles of impeachment." l

i For this debate, and the attendant proceedings, see Congressional Globe,
42d Cong. 1st Sess., pp. 33-53.

STATEMENT.

"YTTHILE I was under trial before the Senate, on
V V articles of impeachment presented by the Sen-
ator from Wisconsin, [ Mr. HOWE,] I forbore taking any
part in the debate, even in reply to allegations, asserted
to be of decisive importance, touching my relations with
the President and Secretary of State. All this was triv-
ial enough ; but numerous appeals to me from opposite
parts of the country show that good people have been
diverted by these allegations from the question of prin-
ciple involved. Without intending in any way to re-
vive the heats of that debate, I am induced to make a
plain statement of facts, so that the precise character of
those relations shall be known. I do this with un-
speakable reluctance, but in the discharge of a public
duty where the claims of patriotism are above even
those of self-defence. The Senate and the country have
an interest in knowing the truth of this matter, and so
also has the Eepublican party, which cannot be indiffer-
ent to pretensions in its name ; nor will anything but
the completest frankness be proper for the occasion.

In overcoming this reluctance I am aided by Senators
who are determined to make me speak. The Senator
from Wisconsin, [Mr. HOWE,] who appears as prosecut-
ing officer, after alleging these personal relations as the

STATEMENT. 103

gravamen of accusation against me, making the issue
pointedly on this floor, and actually challenging reply,
not content with the opportunity of this Chamber,
hurried to the public press, where he repeated the ac-
cusation, and now circulates it, as I am told, under his
frank, crediting it in formal terms to the liberal paper in
which it appeared, but without allusion to the editorial
refutation which accompanied it. On still another oc-
casion, appearing still as prosecuting officer, the same
Senator volunteered, out of his own invention, to de-
nounce me as leaving the Republican party, and this
he did, with infinite personality of language and manner,
in the very face of my speech to which he was replying,
where, in positive words, I declare that I speak " for the
sake of the Republican party," which I hope to save
from responsibility for wrongful acts, and then, in other
words making the whole assumption of the Senator an
impossibility, I announce, that in speaking for the Re-
publican party it is "because from the beginning I have
been the faithful servant of that party and aspire to see
it strong and triumphant." l In the face of this declared
aspiration, in harmony with my whole life, the Senator
delivered his attack, and, assuming to be nothing less
than Pope, launched against me his bull of excommuni-
cation. Then, again playing Pope, he took back his
thunder, with the apology that others thought so, and
this alleged understanding of others he did not hesitate
to set above my positive and contemporaneous language
that I aspired to see the Republican party strong and
triumphant. Then came the Senator from Ohio, [Mr.
SHERMAN,] who, taking up his vacation pen, added to
the articles of impeachment by a supplementary allega-

1 Speech in the Senate, March 27, 1871, ante, p. 19.

104 PERSONAL RELATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT

tion, adopted by the Senator under a misapprehension of
facts. Here was another challenge. During all this
time I have been silent. Senators have spoken, and
then rushed into print ; but I have said nothing. They
have had their own way with regard to me. It is they
who leave me no alternative.

It is alleged that I have no personal relations with
the President. Here the answer is easy. I have pre-
cisely the relations which he has chosen. On reaching
Washington in December last, I was assured from vari-
ous quarters that the White House was angry with me ;
and soon afterward the public journals reported the
President as saying to a Senator, that, if he were not
President, he " would call me to account." What he
meant I never understood, nor would I attribute to him
more than he meant ; but that he used the language re-
ported I have no doubt, from information independent
of the newspapers. I repeat that on this point I have
no doubt. The same newspapers reported, also, that a
member of the President's household, enjoying his pe-
culiar confidence, taking great part in the San Domingo
scheme, had menaced me with personal violence. I
could not believe the story, except on positive, unequiv-
ocal testimony. That the menace was made on the con-
dition of his not being an Army officer I do not doubt.
The member of the household, when interrogated by my
excellent colleague, [Mr. WILSON,] positively denied
the menace ; but I am assured, on authority above
question, that he has since acknowledged it, while the
President still retains him in service, and sends him to
this Chamber.

During this last session, I have opposed the Presiden-

AND SECRETARY OF STATE. 105

tial policy on an important question, but always with-
out one word touching motives, or one suggestion of
corruption on his part, although I never doubted that
there were actors in the business who could claim no
such immunity. It now appears that Fabens, who
came here as plenipotentiary to press the scheme, has
concessions to such amount that the diplomatist is lost
in the speculator. I always insisted that the President
was no party to any such transaction. I should do in-
justice to my own feelings, if I did not here declare my
regret that I could not agree with the President. I
tried to think as he did, but I could not I listened to
the arguments on his side, but in vain. The adverse
considerations multiplied with time and reflection. To
those who know the motives of my life it is superfluous
for me to add that I sought simply the good of my
country and Humanity, including especially the good of
the African race, to which our country owes so much.

Already there was anger at the White House when
the scheme to buy and annex half an island in the Ca-
ribbean Sea was pressed upon the Senate in legislative
session under the guise of appointing a Commission,
and it became my duty to expose it. Here I was con-
strained to show how, at very large expense, the usurper
Baez was maintained in power by the Navy of the
United States to enable him to sell his country, while
at the same time the independence of the Black Repub-
lic was menaced, all of which was in violation of In-
ternational Law, and of the Constitution of the United
States, which reserves to Congress the power "to de-
clare war." What I said was in open debate, where the
record will speak for me. I hand it over to the most
careful scrutiny, knowing that the President can take

106 PERSONAL RELATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT

no just exception to it, unless he insists upon limiting
proper debate, and boldly denies the right of a Senator
to express himself freely on great acts of wrong. Nor
will any Eepublican Senator admit that the President
can impose his own sole will upon the Kepublican
party. Our party is in itself a Kepublic with universal
suffrage, and until a measure is adopted by the party no
Eepublican President can make it a party test

Much as I am pained in making this statement with
regard to the President, infinitely more painful to me is
what I must present with regard to the Secretary of
State. Here again I remark that I am driven to this
explanation. His strange and unnatural conduct to-
ward me, and his prompting of Senators, who, one after
another, have set up my alleged relations with him
as ground of complaint, make it necessary for me to
proceed.

We were sworn as Senators on the same day, as far
back as 1851, and from that distant time were friends
until the San Domingo business intervened. Nothing
could exceed our kindly relations in the past. On the
evening of the inauguration of General Grant as Presi-
dent, he was at my house with Mr. Motley in friendly
communion, and all uniting in aspirations for the new
Administration. Little did Mr. Motley or myself im-
agine in that social hour that one of our little circle was
so soon to turn upon us both. r

Shortly afterward Mr. Fish became Secretary of State,
and began his responsible duties by appealing to me for
help. I need not say that I had pleasure in responding
to his call, and that I did what I could most sincerely
and conscientiously to aid him. Of much, from his ar-

AND SECRETARY OF STATE. 107

rival down to his alienation on the San Domingo busi-
ness, I possess the written record. For some time he
showed a sympathy with the scheme almost as little as
my own. But as the President grew in earnestness the
Secretary yielded, until tardily he became its attorney.
Repeatedly he came to my house, pleading for the
scheme. Again and again he urged it, sometimes at my
house and sometimes at his own. I was astonished that
he could do so, and expressed my astonishment with the
frankness of old friendship. For apology he announced
that he was the President's friend, and took office as
such. " But," said I, " you should resign rather than do
this thing." This I could not refrain from remarking,
on discovery, from dispatches in the State Department,
that the usurper Baez was maintained in power by our
Navy. This plain act of wrong required instant redress;
but the Secretary astonished me again by his insensibil-
ity to my appeal for justice. He maintained the Pres-
ident, as the President maintained Baez. I confess that
I was troubled.

At last, some time in June, 1870, a few weeks before
the San Domingo treaty was finally rejected by the
Senate, the Secretary came to my house about nine
o'clock in the evening and remained till after the clock
struck midnight, the whole protracted visit being occu-
pied in earnest and reiterated appeal that I should cease
my opposition to the Presidential scheme ; and here he
urged that the election which made General Grant Pres-
ident had been carried by him, and not by the Republi-
can party, so that his desires were entitled to especial
attention. In his pressure on me he complained that I
had opposed other projects of the President In reply
to my inquiry, he named the repeal of the Tenure-of-

108 PERSONAL RELATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT

Office Act, and the nomination of Mr. Jones as Minister
to Brussels, both of which the President had much at
heart, and he concluded with the San Domingo treaty.
I assured the Secretary firmly and simply, that, seeing
the latter as I did with all its surroundings, my duty
was plain, and that I must continue to oppose it so long
as it appeared to me wrong. He was not satisfied, and
renewed his pressure in various forms, returning to the
point again and again with persevering assiduity that
would not be arrested, when at last, finding me inflex-
ible, he changed his appeal, saying, "Why not go to
London ? I offer you the English mission. It is yours."
Of his authority from the President I know nothing. I
speak only of what he said. My astonishment was
heightened by indignation at this too palpable attempt
to take me from my post of duty ; but I suppressed the
feeling which rose to the lips, and, reflecting that he was
an old friend and in my own house, answered gently,
" We have a Minister there who cannot be bettered."
Thus already did the mission to London begin to pivot
on San Domingo.

I make this revelation only because it is important
to a correct understanding of the case, and because the
conversation from beginning to end was official in char-
acter, relating exclusively to public business, without
suggestion or allusion of a personal nature, and abso-
lutely without the slightest word on my part leading in
the most remote degree to any such overture, which was
unexpected as undesired. The offer of the Secretary
was in no respect a compliment or kindness, but in the
strict line of his endeavor to silence my opposition to
the San Domingo scheme, as is too apparent from the
facts, while it was plain, positive, and unequivocal, mak-

AND SECRETARY OF STATE. 109

ing its object and import beyond question. Had it been
merely an inquiry, it were bad enough, under the cir-
cumstances ; but it was direct and complete, as by a
plenipotentiary.

Shortly afterward, being the day immediately follow-
ing the rejection of the San Domingo treaty, Mr. Mot-
ley was summarily removed, according to present pre-
tence, for an offending not only trivial and formal, but
condoned by time, being a year old: very much as Sir
Walter Raleigh, after being released from the Tower to
conduct a distant expedition as admiral of the fleet, was
at his return beheaded on a judgment of fifteen years'
standing. The Secretary, in conversation and in corre-
spondence with me, undertook to explain the removal,
insisting for a long time that he was " the friend of Mr.
Motley " ; but he always made the matter worse, while
the heats of San Domingo entered into the discussion.

At last, in January, 1871, a formal paper justifying
the removal and signed by the Secretary was laid before
the Senate. 1 Glancing at this document, I found, to my
surprise, that its most salient characteristic was constant
vindictiveness toward Mr. Motley, with effort to wound
his feelings ; and this was signed by one who had sat
with him at my house in friendly communion and com-
mon aspiration on the evening of the inauguration of
General Grant, and had so often insisted that he was
"the friend of Mr. Motley," while, as if it was not
enough to insult one Massachusetts citizen in the public
service, the same document, after a succession of flings
and sneers, makes a kindred assault on me; and this
is signed by one who so constantly called me " friend,"

i Mr. Fish to Mr. Moran, December 30, 1870; Recall of Minister Motley:
Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 11, pp. 27, seqq.

110 PERSONAL RELATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT

and asked me for help. The Senator from Missouri
[Mr. SCHURZ] has already directed attention to this
assault, and has expressed his judgment upon it,
confessing that he "should not have failed to feel the
insult," and then exclaiming, with just indignation,
" When such things are launched against any member
of this body, it becomes the American Senate to stand
by him, and not to attempt to disgrace and to degrade
him because he shows the sensitiveness of a gentleman." l
It is easy to see how this Senator regarded the conduct
of the Secretary. Nor is its true character open to
doubt, especially when we consider the context, and how
this full-blown personality naturally flowered out of the
whole document.

Mr. Motley, in his valedictory to the State Depart-
ment, had alluded to the rumor that he was removed on
account of my opposition to the San Domingo treaty.
The document signed by the Secretary, while mingling
most offensive terms with regard to his "friend" in Lon-
don, thus turns upon his " friend " in Washington :

" It remains only to notice Mr. Motley's adoption of a
rumor which had its origin in this city in a source bitterly,
personally, and vindictively hostile to the President.

" Mr. Motley says it has been rumored that he was ' re-
moved from the post of Minister to England ' on account of
the opposition made by an ' eminent Senator, who honors me
[him] with his friendship,' to the San Domingo treaty.

"Men are apt to attribute the causes of their own failures
or their own misfortunes to others than themselves, and to
claim association or seek a partnership with real or imaginary
greatness with which to divide their sorrows or their mistakes.
There can be no question as to the identity of the eminent

1 Debate of March 10, 1871 : Congressional Globe, p. 36, col. 2.

AND SECRETARY OF STATE. Ill

Senator at whose door Mr. Motley is willing to deposit the
cause of his removal. But he is entirely mistaken in seeking
a vicarious cause of his loss in confidence and favor ; and it
is unworthy of Mr. Motley's real merit and ability, and an
injustice to the venerable Senator alluded to, (to whose in-
fluence and urgency he was originally indebted for his nom-
ination,) to attribute to him any share in the cause of his
removal.

" Mr. Motley must know, or, if he does not know it, he
stands alone in his ignorance of the fact, that many Senators
opposed the San Domingo treaty openly, generously, and with
as much efficiency as did the distinguished Senator to whom he
refers, and have nevertheless continued to enjoy the undiminished
confidence and the friendship of the President, than whom
no man living is more tolerant of honest and manly differ-
ences of opinion, is more single or sincere in his desire for
the public welfare, is more disinterested or regardless of what
concerns himself, is more frank and confiding in his own
dealings, is more sensitive to a betrayal of confidence, or would
look with more scorn and contempt upon one who uses the word*
and the assurances of friendship to cover a secret and deter-
mined purpose of hostility." l

The eulogy of the President here is at least singular,
when it is considered that every dispatch of the Secre-
tary of State is by order of the President ; but it is evi-
dent that the writer of this dispatch had made up his
mind to set all rule at defiance. If, beyond paying
court to the President, even at the expense of making
him praise himself, the concluding sentence of this elab-
orate passage, so full of gall from beginning to end, had
any object, if it were anything but a mountain of words,
it was an open attempt to make an official document the

1 Mr. Fish to Mr. Moran, December 30, 1870 : Executive Documents,
41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 11, pp. 36-87.

112 PERSONAL RELATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT

vehicle of personal insult to me ; and this personal in-
sult was signed "HAMILTON FISH." As I became aware
of it, and found also that it was regarded by others in
the same light, I was distressed and perplexed. I could
not comprehend it. I knew not why the Secretary
should step so far out of his way, in a manner absolute-
ly without precedent, to treat me with ostentatious in-
dignity, especially when I thought that for years I
had been his friend, that I had never spoken of him
except with kindness, and that constantly since assum-
ing his present duties he had turned to me for help.
This was more incomprehensible when I considered
how utterly groundless were all his imputations. I
have lived in vain, if such an attempt on me can fail
to rebound on its author.

Not lightly would I judge an ancient friend. For a
time I said nothing to anybody of the outrage, hoping
that perhaps the Secretary would open his eyes to the
true character of the document he had signed and vol-
unteer some friendly explanation. Meanwhile a propo-
sition to resume negotiations was received from England,
and the Secretary, it seems, desired to confer with me
on the subject ; but there was evident consciousness on
his part that he had done wrong, for, instead of com-
ing to me at once, he sent for Mr. Patterson, of the Sen-
ate, and, telling him that he wished to confer with me,
added, that he did not know precisely what were his re-
lations with me and how I should receive him. Within
a brief fortnight I had been in conference with him at
the State Department and had dined at his house, be-
sides about the same time making a call there. Yet he
was in doubt about his relations with me. Plainly be-
cause, since the conference, the dinner, and the call, the

AND SECRETARY OF STATE. 113

document signed by him had been communicated to the
Senate, and the conscience-struck Secretary did not
know how I should take it. Mr. Patterson asked me
what he should report. I replied, that, should the Sec-
retary come to my house, he would be received as an old
friend, and that at any time I should be at his service
for consultation on public business, but that I could not
conceal my deep sense of personal wrong received from
him absolutely without reason or excuse. That this
message was communicated by Mr. Patterson I cannot
doubt, for the Secretary came" to my house, and there
was a free conference. How frankly I spoke on public
questions, without one word on other things, the Secre-
tary knows. He will remember if any inquiry, remark,
or allusion escaped from me, except in reference to pub-
lic business. The interview was of business and noth-
ing else.

On careful reflection, it seemed to me plain, that,
while meeting the Secretary officially, it would not be
consistent with self-respect for me to continue personal
relations with one who had put his name to a document,
which, after protracted fury toward another, contained
a studied insult to me, where the fury was intensified
rather than tempered by too obvious premeditation.
Public business must not suffer, but in such a case per-
sonal relations naturally cease; and this rule I have
followed since. Is there any Senator who would have
done less ? Are there not many who would have done
more ? I am at a loss to understand how the Secretary
could expect anything beyond those official relations
which I declared my readiness at all times to maintain,
and which, even after his assault on me, he was willing
to seek at my own house. To expect more shows on

VOL. XIX. 8

114 PERSONAL^RELATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT

his part grievous insensibility to the thing he had done.
Whatever one signs he "makes his own ; and the Secre-
tary, when he signed this document, adopted a libel
upon his friend, and when he communicated it to the
Senate he published the libel. Nothing like it can be
shown in the history of our Government. It stands
alone. The Secretary is alone. Like Jean Paul in Ger-
man literature, his just title will be " The Only One."
For years I have known Secretaries of State and often
differed from them, but never before did I receive from
one anything but kindness. Never before did a Secre-
tary of State sign a document libelling an associate in
the public service, and publish it to the world. Never
before did a Secretary of State so entirely set at defiance
every sentiment of friendship. It is impossible to ex-
plain this strange aberration, except from the disturbing
influence of San Domingo. But whatever its origin, its
true character is beyond question.

As nothing like this state-paper can be shown in the
history of our Government, so also nothing like it can
be shown in the history of other Governments. Not an
instance can be named in any country, where a person-
age in corresponding official position has done such a
thing. The American Secretary is alone, not only in
his own country, but in all countries ; " none but him-
self can be his parallel." Seneca, in the " Hercules Fu-
rens," has pictured him :

" Quaeris Alcidae parem ?
Nemo est, nisi ipse."

He is originator and first inventor, with all prerogatives
and responsibilities thereto belonging.

I have mentioned only one sally in this painful docu-
ment; but the whole, besides its prevailing offensive-

AND SECRETARY OF STATE. 115

ness, shows inconsistency with actual facts of my own
knowledge, which is in entire harmony with the reck-
lessness toward me, and attests the same spirit through-
out Thus, we have the positive allegation that the
death of Lord Clarendon, June 27, 1870, " determined
the time for inviting Mr. Motley to make place for a
successor," * when, in point of fact, some time before his
Lordship's illness even, the Secretary had invited me to
go to London as Mr. Motley's successor, thus showing
that the explanation of Lord Clarendon's death was an
after-thought, when it became important to divert atten-
tion from the obvious dependence of the removal upon
the defeat of the San Domingo treaty.

A kindred inconsistency arrested the attention of the
London " Times," in its article of January 24, 1871, on
the document signed by the Secretary. Here, according
to this journal, the document supplied the means of cor-
rection, since it set forth that on the 25th June, two
days before Lord Clarendon's death, Mr. Motley's com-
ing removal was announced in a London journal Af-
ter stating the alleged dependence of the removal upon
the death of Lord Clarendon, the journal, holding the
scales, remarks : " And yet there is at least one circum-
stance, appearing, strange to say, in Mr. Fish's own dis-
patch, which is not quite consistent with the explanation
he sets up of Mr. Motley's recall." Then, after quoting
from the document, and mentioning that its own corre-
spondent at Philadelphia did on the 25th June " send
us a message that Mr. Motley was about to be with-
drawn," the journal mildly concludes, that, "as this
was two days before Lord Clarendon's death, which was
unforeseen here and could not have been expected in

1 Mr. Fish to Mr. Moran: Ex. Doc., vA supra, p. 37.

116 PERSONAL RELATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT

the States, it is difficult to connect the resolution to super-
sede the late American Minister with the change at our
Foreign Office." The difficulty of the "Times" is in-
creased by the earlier incident with regard to myself.

Not content with making the removal depend upon
the death of Lord Clarendon, when it was heralded
abroad not only before the death of this minister had
occurred, but while it was yet unforeseen, the document
seeks to antedate the defeat of the San Domingo treaty,
so as to interpose " weeks and months " between the lat-
ter event and the removal. The language is explicit.
"The treaty," says the document, "was admitted to be
practically dead, and was waiting only the formal action
of the Senate, for weeks and months before the decease
of the illustrious statesman of Great Britain." 1 Weeks
and months ! And yet during the last month, when the
treaty " was admitted to be practically dead," the Secre-
tary who signed the document passed three hours at my
house, pleading with me to withdraw my opposition,
and finally wound up by tender to me of the English
mission, with no other apparent object than simply to
get me out of the way.

Then again we have the positive allegation that the
President embraced an opportunity "to prevent any
further misapprehension of his views through Mr. Mot-
ley by taking from him the right to discuss further the
' Alabama claims '" ; 2 whereas the Secretary in a letter
to me at Boston, dated at Washington, October 9, 1869,
informs me that the discussion of the question was
withdrawn from London "because" (the Italics are the
Secretary's) " we think, that, when renewed, it can be

1 Mr. Pish to Mr. Moran : Ex. Doc., ut supra, p. 37.
Ibid., p. 32.

AND SECRETARY OF STATE. 117

carried on here with a better prospect of settlement
than where the late attempt at a convention which re-
sulted so disastrously and was conducted so strangely
was had"; and what the Secretary thus wrote he re-
peated in conversation when we met, carefully making
the transfer to "Washington depend upon our advantage
here from the presence of the Senate: thus showing
that the pretext put forth to wound Mr. Motley was an
after-thought.

Still further, the document signed by the Secretary
alleges, by way of excuse for removing Mr. Motley, the
" important public consideration of having a representa-
tive in sympathy with the President's views"; 1 where-
as, when the Secretary tendered the mission to me, no
allusion was made to " sympathy with the President's
views," while Mr. Motley, it appears, was charged with
agreeing too much with me : all of which shows how
little this matter had to do with the removal, and how
much the San Domingo business at the time was above
any question of conformity on other things.

In the amiable passage already quoted 2 there is a
parenthesis which breathes the prevailing spirit. By
way of aspersion on Mr. Motley and myself, the country
is informed that he was indebted for his nomination to
"influence and urgency" on my part. Of the influence
I know nothing ; but I deny positively any " urgency."
I spoke with the President on this subject once casually
on the stairs of the Executive Mansion, and then again
in a formal interview. And here, since the effort of the
Secretary, I shall frankly state what I said and how it
was introduced. I began by remarking, that, with the

1 Mr. Fish to Mr. Moran : Ex. Doc., ut supra, p. 34.

2 Ante, p. 111.

118 PERSONAL RELATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT

permission of the President, I should venture to suggest
the expediency of continuing Mr. Marsh in Italy, Mr.
Morris at Constantinople, and Mr. Bancroft at Berlin,
as all these exerted a peculiar influence and did honor
to our country. To this list I proposed to add Dr. Howe
in Greece, believing that he, too, would do honor to our
country, and also Mr. Motley in London, who, I sug-
gested, would have an influence there beyond his offi-
cial position. The President said that nobody should
be sent to London who was not " right " on the Claims
question, and he kindly explained to me what he meant
by " right." From this time I had no conversation with
him about Mr. Motley, until after the latter had left for
his post, when the President volunteered to express his
great satisfaction in the appointment. Such was the
extent of my " urgency." Nor was I much in advance
of the Secretary at that time ; for he showed me what
was called the "brief" at the State Department for the
English mission, with Mr. Motley's name at the head of
the list.

Other allusions to myself would be cheerfully forgot-
ten, if they were not made the pretext to assail Mr.
Motley, who is held to severe account for supposed de-
pendence on me. If this were crime, not the Minister,
but the Secretary, should suffer ; for it is the Secretary,
and not the Minister, who appealed to me constantly for
help, often desiring me to think for him, and more than
once to hold the pen for him. But, forgetting his own
relations with me, the Secretary turns upon Mr. Motley,
who never asked me to think for him or to hold the
pen for him. Other things the Secretary also forgot.
He forgot that the blow he dealt, whether at Mr. Mot-
ley or myself, rudely tore the veil from the past, so far

AND SECRETARY OF STATE. 119

as its testimony might be needed in elucidation of the
truth; that the document he signed was a challenge
and provocation to meet him on the facts without re-
serve or concealment; that the wantonness of assault
on Mr. Motley was so closely associated with that on
me, that any explanation I might make must be a de-
fence of him ; that, even if duty to the Senate and my-
self did not require this explanation, there are other du-
ties not to be disregarded, among which is duty to the
absent, who cannot be permitted to suffer unjustly,
duty to a much-injured citizen of Massachusetts, who
may properly look to a Senator of his State for pro-
tection against official wrong, duty also to a public
servant insulted beyond precedent, who, besides writing
and speaking most effectively for the Eepublican party
and for this Administration, has added to the renown
of our country by unsurpassed success in literature,
commending him to the gratitude and good- will of all.
These things the Secretary strangely forgot, when he
dealt the blow which tore the veil.

The crime of the Minister was dependence on me :
so says the state-paper. A simple narrative will show
who is the criminal. My early relations with the Sec-
retary have already appeared, and how he began by ask-
ing me for help, practising constantly on this appeal.
A few details will be enough. At once on his arrival
to assume his new duties, he asked my counsel about
appointing Mr. Bancroft Davis Assistant Secretary of
State, and I advised the appointment, without suffi-
cient knowledge, I am inclined to believe now. Then
followed the questions with Spain growing out of Cuba,
which were the subject of constant conference, where he
sought me repeatedly and kindly listened to my opin-

120 PERSONAL RELATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT

ions. Then came the instructions for the English mis-
sion, known as the dispatch of May 15, 1869. At each
stage of these instructions I was in the counsels of the
Secretary. Following my suggestion, he authorized me
to invite Mr. Motley in his name to prepare the " me-
moir" or essay on our claims, which, notwithstanding
its entirely confidential character, he drags before the
world, for purpose of assault, in a manner clearly un-
justifiable. Then, as the dispatch was preparing, he
asked my help especially in that part relating to the
concession of belligerent rights. I have here the first
draught of this important passage in pencil and in my
own handwriting, varying in no essential respect from
that adopted. Here will be found the distinction on
which I have always insisted, that, while other pow-
ers conceded belligerent rights to our Rebels, it was in
England only that the concession was supplemented by
acts causing direct damage to the United States. Not
long afterward, in August, 1869, when the British storm
had subsided, I advised that the discussion should be-
renewed by an elaborate communication, setting forth
our case in length and breadth, but without any esti-
mate of damages, throwing upon England the oppor-
tunity, if not the duty, of making some practical prop-
osition. Adopting this recommendation, the Secretary
invited me to write the dispatch. I thought it better
that it should be done by another, and I named for this
purpose an accomplished gentleman whom I knew to be
familiar with the question, and he wrote the dispatch.
This paper, bearing date September 25, 1869, is unques-
tionably the ablest in the history of the present Admin-
istration, unless we except the last dispatch of Mr.
Motley.

AND SECRETARY OF STATE. . 121

In a letter dated at Washington, October 15, 1869,
and addressed to me at Boston, the Secretary describes
this paper in the following terms:

" The dispatch to Motley (which I learn by a telegram
from him has been received) is a calm, full review of our en-
tire case, making no demand, no valuation of damages, but I
believe covering all the ground and all the points that have
been made on our side. I hope that it will meet your views.
I think it will. It leaves the question with Great Britain to
determine when any negotiations are to be renewed."

The Secretary was right in his description. It was a
"full review of our entire case," " covering all the ground
and all the points " ; and it did meet my views, as the
Secretary thought it would, especially where it arraigned
so strongly that fatal concession of belligerent rights on
the ocean, which in any faithful presentment of the na-
tional cause will always be the first stage of evidence,
since, without this precipitate and voluntary act, the
Common Law of England was a positive protection
against the equipment of a corsair ship, or even the
supply of a blockade-runner for unacknowledged rebels.
The conformity of this dispatch with my views was
recognized by others besides the Secretary. It is well
known that Lord Clarendon did not hesitate in familiar
conversation to speak of it as "Mr. Sumner's speech
over again " ; while another English personage said that
" it out-Sumnered Sumner." And yet, with his name
signed to this dispatch, written at my suggestion, and in
entire conformity with my views, as admitted by him
and recognized by the English Government, the Secre-
tary taunts Mr. Motley for supposed harmony with me
on this very question. This taunt is still more unnatu-
ral when it is known that this dispatch is in similar

122 PERSONAL RELATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT

conformity with the " memoir " of Mr. Motley, and was
evidently written with knowledge of that admirable
document, where the case of our country is stated with
perfect mastery. But the story does not end here.

On the communication of this dispatch to the British
Government, Mr. Thornton was instructed to ascertain
what would be accepted by our Government, when the
Secretary, under date of Washington, November 6, 1869,
reported to me this application, and then, after express-
ing unwillingness to act on it until he " could have an
opportunity of consulting " me, he wrote, " When will
you be here ? Will you either note what you think
will be sufficient to meet the views of the Senate and
of the country, or will you formulate such proposition ? "
After this responsible commission, the letter winds up
with the earnest request, "Let me hear from you as
soon as you can," (the Italics are the Secretary's,) " and
I should like to confer with you at the earliest con-
venient time." On my arrival at Washington, the Sec-
retary came to my house at once, and we conferred
freely. San Domingo had not yet sent its shadow in-
to his soul.

It is easily seen that here was constant and reiterated
appeal to me, especially on our negotiations with Eng-
land ; and yet, in the face of this testimony, where he is
the unimpeachable witness, the Secretary is pleased to
make Mr. Motley's supposed relations with me the occa-
sion of insult to him, while, as if this were not enough,
he crowns his work with personal assault on me, all
of which, whether as regards Mr. Motley or me, is be-
yond comprehension.

How little Mr. Motley merited anything but respect
and courtesy from the Secretary is attested by all who

AND SECRETARY OF STATE. 123

know his eminent position in London, and the service
he rendered to his country. Already the London press,
usually slow to praise Americans when strenuous for
their country, has furnished its voluntary testimony.
The " Daily News " of August 16, 1870, spoke of the
insulted Minister in these terms :

" "We are violating no confidence in saying that all the
hopes and promises of Mr. Motley's official residence in Eng-
land have been amply fulfilled, and that the announcement
of his unexpected and unexplained recall was received with
extreme astonishment and unfeigned regret. The vacancy
he leaves cannot possibly be filled by a Minister more sensi-
tive to the honor of his Government, more attentive to the
interests of his country, and more capable of uniting the most
rigorous performance of his public duties with the high-bred
courtesy and the conciliatory tact and temper that make those
duties easy and successful. Mr. Motley's successor will find
his mission wonderfully facilitated by the firmness and discre-
tion that have presided over the conduct of American affairs
in this country during too brief a term, too suddenly and un-
accountably concluded."

The London press had not the key to this extraordi-
nary transaction. It knew not the potency of the San
Domingo spell, nor its strange influence over the Sec-
retary, even breeding insensibility to instinctive ameni-
ties, and awakening peculiar unfriendliness to Mr. Mot-
ley, so amply certified afterward in an official document
under his own hand, all of which burst forth with
more than the tropical luxuriance of the much-coveted
island.

I cannot disguise the sorrow with which I offer this
explanation. In self-defence and for the sake of truth

124 PERSONAL RELATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT.

do I now speak. I have cultivated forbearance, and
hoped from the 'bottom of my heart that I might do so
to the end. But beyond the call of the public press has
been the defiant challenge of Senators, and also the con-
sideration sometimes presented by friends, that my si-
lence might be misinterpreted. Tardily and most re-
luctantly I make this record, believing it more a duty to
the Senate than to myself, but a plain duty, to be per-
formed in all simplicity without reserve. Having noth-
ing to conceal, and willing always to be judged by the
truth, I court the fullest inquiry, and shrink from no
conclusion founded on an accurate knowledge of the
case.

If this narration enables any one to see in clearer
light the injustice done to Mr. Motley, then have I per-
formed a further duty too long postponed ; nor will it
be doubted by any honest nature, that, since the assault
of the Secretary, he was entitled to that vindication
which is found in a statement of facts within my own
knowledge. Anything short of this would be a license
to the Secretary in his new style of state-paper, which,
for the sake of the public service and of good- will among
men, must be required to stand alone, in the isolation
which becomes its abnormal character. Plainly without
precedent in the past, it must be without chance of rep-
etition in the future.

Here I stop. My present duty is performed when
I set forth the simple facts, exhibiting those personal
relations which have been drawn in question, without
touching the questions of principle behind.

THE KU-KLUX-KLAN.

SPKECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE BILL TO ENFORCE THE
PROVISIONS OP THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE
CONSTITUTION, APRIL 13, 1871.

MR. PRESIDENT, The questions presented in
this debate have been of fact and of Constitu-
tional Law. It is insisted on one side that a condition
of things exists in certain States affecting life, liberty,
property, and the enjoyment of Equal Rights, which can
be corrected only by the national arm. On the other
side this statement is controverted, and it is argued also
that such intervention is inconsistent with the Consti-
tution of the United States. On both questions, whether
of fact or law, I cannot hesitate. To my mind, outrages
are proved, fearful in character; nor can I doubt the
power under the Constitution to apply the remedy.

The evidence is cumulative. Ruffians in paint and
in disguise seize the innocent, insult them, rob them,
murder them. Communities are kept under this ter-
rible shadow. And this terror falls especially upon those
who have stood by the Union in its bloody trial, and
those others of different color who have just been ad-
mitted to the blessings of Freedom. To both of these
classes is our nation bound by every obligation of public

126 THE KU-KLUX-KLAN.

faith. We cannot see them sacrificed without apostasy.
If the power to protect them fails, then is the National
Constitution a failure.

I do not set forth the evidence, for this has been
amply done by others, and to repeat it would be only to
occupy time and to darken the hour. The Report of
the Committee, at least as regards one State, 1 the testi-
mony of the public press, the stories of violence with
which the air is laden, and private letters with their
painful narrations, all these unite, leaving no doubt as
to the harrowing condition of things in certain States
lately in rebellion, not the same in all these States
or in all parts of a State, but such as to show in many
States the social fabric menaced, disturbed, imperilled
in its very foundations, while life, liberty, property, and
the enjoyment of Equal Eights are without that secu-
rity which is the first condition of civilization. This
is the case simply stated. If such things can be with-
out a remedy, applied, if need be, by the national arm,
then are we little more than a bundle of sticks, but not
a nation. Believing that we are a nation, I cannot
doubt the power and the duty of the National Govern-
ment. Thus on general grounds do I approach the true
conclusion.

So long as Slavery endured a State was allowed to
play the turtle, and, sheltered within its shell, to escape
the application of those master principles which are
truly national. The Declaration of Independence with
its immortal truths was in abeyance ; the Constitution
itself was interpreted always in support of Slavery. I
never doubted that this interpretation was wrong, not

Report of Select Committee to investigate the alleged Outrages in the
Southern States, North Carolina: Senate Reports, 42d Cong. 1st Sess.,
No. 1.

THE KU-KLUX-KLAN. 127

even in the days of Slavery; but it is doubly, triply
wrong now that the Declaration of Independence is at
last regarded, and that the Constitution not only makes
Slavery impossible, but assures the citizen in the en-
joyment of Equal Eights. I do not quote these texts,
whether of the Declaration or the Constitution. You
know them by heart. But they are not vain words.
Vital in themselves, they are armed with all needful
powers to carry them into execution. As in other days
Slavery gave its character to the Constitution, filling it
with its own denial of Equal Rights, and compelling the
National Government to be its instrument, so now do I
insist that Liberty must give its character to the Consti-
tution, filling it with life-giving presence, and compel-
ling the National Government to be its instrument.
Once the Nation served Slavery, and in this service
ministered to State Eights ; now it must serve Liberty
with kindred devotion, even to the denial of State
Eights. All this I insist is plain, according to rules of
interpretation simple and commanding.

In other days, while the sinister influence prevailed,
the States were surrounded by a Chinese wall so broad
that horsemen and chariots could travel upon it abreast ;
but that wall has now been beaten down, and the citizen
everywhere is under the protection of the same Equal
Laws, not only without distinction of color, but also
without distinction of State.

What makes us a Nation ? Not armies, not fleets,
not fortifications, not commerce reaching every shore
abroad, not industry filling every vein at home, not
population thronging the highways ; none of these make
our Nation. The national life of this Eepublic is found
in the principle of Unity, and in the Equal Eights of all

128 THE KU-KLUX-KLAN.

our people, all of which, being national in character,
are necessarily placed under the great safeguard of the
Nation. Let the National Unity be assailed, and the
Nation will spring to its defence. Let the humblest
citizen in the remotest village be assailed in the enjoy-
ment of Equal Eights, and the Nation must do for that
humblest citizen what it would do for itself. And this
is only according to the original promises of the Dec-
laration of Independence, and the more recent prom-
ises of the Constitutional Amendments, the two con-
curring in the same national principles.

Do you question the binding character of the Great
Declaration ? Then do I invoke the Constitutional
Amendments. But you cannot turn from either ; and
each establishes beyond question the boundaries of na-
tional power, making it coextensive with the National
Unity and the Equal Eights of All, originally declared
and subsequently assured. Whatever is announced in
the Declaration is essentially National, and so also is all
that is assured. The principles of the Declaration, rein-
forced by the Constitutional Amendments, cannot be
allowed to suffer. Being common to all, they must be
under the safeguard of all Nor can any State set up
its local system against the universal law. Equality
implies universality; and what is universal must be
national If each State is left to determine the protec-
tion of Equal Eights, then will protection vary accord-
ing to the State, and Equal Eights will prevail only
according to the accident of local law. There will be
as many equalities as States. Therefore, in obedience
to reason, as well as solemn mandate, is this power in
the Nation.

Nor am I deterred from this conclusion by any cry of

THE KU-KLUX-KLAN. 129

Centralism, or it may be of Imperialism. These are
terms borrowed from France, where this abuse has be-
come a tyranny, subjecting the most distant communi-
ties, even in the details of administration, to central
control. Mark, if you please, the distinction. But no
such tyranny is proposed among us, nor any interfer-
ence of any kind with matters local in character. The
Nation will not enter the State, except for the safeguard
of rights national in character, and then only as the
sunshine, with beneficent power, and, like the sunshine,
for the equal good of all. As well assail the sun be-
cause it is central, because it is imperial Here is a
just centralism ; here is a generous imperialism. Shun-
ning with patriotic care that injurious centralism and
that fatal imperialism which have been the Nemesis of
France, I hail that other centralism which supplies an
equal protection to every citizen, and that other impe-
rialism which makes Equal Eights the supreme law, to
be maintained by the national arm in all parts of the
land. Centralism ! Imperialism ! Give me the cen-
tralism of Liberty ! Give me the imperialism of Equal
Eights ! And may this National Capitol, where we are
now assembled, be the emblem of our Nation ! Planted
on a hill-top, with portals opening North and South,
East and West, with spacious chambers, and with arch-
ing dome crowned by the image of Liberty, such is
our imperial Eepublic ; but in nothing is it so truly im-
perial as in that beneficent Sovereignty which rises. like
a dome crowned by the image of Liberty.

Nor am I deterred by any party cry. The Eepubli-
can party must do its work, which is nothing less than
the regeneration of the Nation according to the prom-
ises of the Declaration of Independence. To maintain

TOL. XIX. 9

130 THE KU-KLUX-KLAN.

the Kepublic in its unity, and the people in their rights,
such is this transcendent duty. Nor do I fear any
political party which assails these sacred promises, even
if it falsely assume the name of Democrat. How power-
less their efforts against these immortal principles ! For
myself, I know no better service than that which I now
announce. Here have I labored steadfastly from early
life, bearing obloquy and enmity; and here again I
pledge the energies which remain to me, even if ob-
loquy and enmity survive.

OUR DUTY AGAINST WRONG.

LETTER TO THE REFORM LEAGUE, NEW YORK, MAT 8, 1871.

THIS was read by the President of the League at its first anniversary
in Steinway Hall, and reported in the papers.

WASHINGTON, May 8, 1871.

MY DEAR SIR, It is not in my power to be at
your meeting ; but when I think that it will be
held on the anniversary of the good old Antislavery
Society, which was always so apostolic, I pay homage
to the day, and thanks to you for remembering me
among its friends.

Happily, Slavery is abolished ; but, alas ! wrong is
not banished from the earth, nor has it ceased to be or-
ganized in human institutions, or to be maintained by
governments.

In considering the question of San Domingo, I am
sure you will not forget our duty to the Haytian people,
counting by the hundred thousand, who now seek peace
with the rest of the island, and would gladly accept our
good offices. " Blessed are the peacemakers ! " Here is
our opportunity to obtain this blessing; but we must
begin by stopping our war-dance about the island, kept
up at immense cost for more than a year.
Faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNEB.
A. W. POWELL, ESQ.

POWER OF THE SENATE TO IMPRISON RECUSANT
WITNESSES,

SPEECHES IN THE SENATE, MAY 18 AND 27, 1871.

MAY 18, 1871, Z. L. White and H. J. Ramsdell, newspaper corre-
spondents, having been taken into custody by order of the Senate, for
refusing to disclose, on the requisition of a committee appointed to in-
vestigate the matter, the source whence a copy of the Treaty of Wash-
ington had been obtained which they had communicated for publication
while under consideration in Executive Session, and Mr. White, whose
case was first presented, on arraignment at the bar of the Senate per-
sisting in his refusal, a resolution was thereupon offered for his commit-
ment to the common jail until he should answer. Mr. Sumner imme-
diately moved an amendment substituting for the common jail the cus-
tody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, remarking ;

IN support of that amendment I will say that the
only precedent we have in our history known to
me for this case is that of Nugent, 1 and he was commit-
ted to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. It appears
from the newspapers of the time that there was a per-
petual menace, as the excitement increased, that the
custody should be changed to the common jail ; but it
does not appear that it was so changed. He continued

1 A case in Executive Session of the Senate, March and April, 1848, rela-
tive to the surreptitious procurement and publication of a copy of the
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. For some particulars of this case, see
*ltech entitled " Usurpation of the Senate in imprisoning a Citizen," June
15, 1360, ante, Vol. VI. p. 90, note.

RECUSANT WITNESSES. 133

for some two months in the custody of the Sergeant-
at-Arms. We all know, also, that after the Impeach-
ment Trial a witness was taken into custody; but it
was simply the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms of
the House. 1

There is one other precedent to which I ought to
allude, and it will be for the Senate to say whether
they will follow it. It is the resolution of the Senate
in the spring of 1860, on the motion of Mr. Mason,
chairman of the committee raised especially to perse-
cute the supposed associates of John Brown, and taking
one of them into custody, bringing him into this Cham-
ber, propounding to him certain interrogatories which
he refused to answer. Mr. Mason finally brought for-
ward a resolution that he should be committed to the
common jail. 2 That, Sir, is the precedent which it is
now proposed to follow. The Senate will consider
whether they will follow the lead of Mr. Mason, author
of the Fugitive Slave Bill, Chairman of the Harper's
Ferry Investigating Committee, and afterward a Eebel,
in committing a citizen to the common jail, or whether
they will follow the better precedent of the Senate at a
better day and under better auspices.

On this motion I ask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered, with the result, for the amendment,
Yeas 31, Nays 27.

A second resolution, containing a provision for the continuance of
the Committee, with a view to holding the witness in custody after the
close of the session until he should answer as required, which Mr.
Sumner denounced as contrary to all parliamentary precedent, prevailed
against a motion to strike out this part by Yeas 20, Nays 30.

1 Case of Woolley: Congressional Globe, 40th Cong. 2d Sess., House
Proceedings, May 25 to June 11, 1868.

a Case of Hyatt: Ibid., 36th Cong. 1st Sess., Senate Proceedings, Febru-
vj 21 to June 15, 1860.

134 POWER OF THE SENATE

Corresponding resolutions were subsequently adopted in the case of
Mr. Rarasdell, who had likewise persisted in refusing to answer.

May 27th, on a resolution submitted by Mr. Wilson, of Massachu-
setts, for the discharge of these persons from custody "immediately
upon the final adjournment of the session," Mr. Suniner spoke as
follows :

MR. PRESIDENT, This question is important, pri-
marily, as it concerns the liberty of the citizen ; but it
is made important also by the attempt, to which we
have just listened, to establish for the Senate a prerog-
ative which on history and precedent does not belong
to it.

Some days ago I took the ground, which I shall take
to-day, that on the close of the session of the Senate
any imprisonment founded on its order must cease. Of
that conclusion, whether on history or law, I have not
the least doubt. I have listened to the argument of the
Senator from New York, [Mr. CONKLING,] and to his
comment upon the authorities adduced. The answer, to
my mind, is obvious. It will be found simply in stating
one of those authorities and calling attention to its pre-
cise language. The Senator from Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN]
has already presented to-day what I had the honor of
quoting on the first day of this discussion, the authorita-
tive words of May in his work on Parliamentary Law,
and also the solemn judgment of Lord Denman, Chief-
Justice of England. May says, speaking of prisoners
committed by order of the House of Commons, that they

"are immediately released from their confinement on a proro-
gation, whether they have paid the fees or not. li they were
held longer in custody, they would be discharged by the
courts, upon a writ of Habeas Corpm." 1

Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings, and Usage of Parliament,
(6th edition, Ix>ndon, 1868,) p. 105.

TO IMPRISON RECUSANT WITNESSES. 135

This statement, coming as it does from the well-
known Clerk of the House of Commons, as familiar
with the usages of that body as any living man, is of
itself authority. But he adduces the weighty words of
Lord Denman in the most remarkable case of privilege
that has ever occurred in English history, being that of
Stockdale and Hansard, which, it is well known, was
discussed day by day in Parliament, week by week in
Westminster Hall. I have before me the opinions of all
the judges on that case, but the words that are partic-
ularly pertinent now are quoted by May as follows :

" However flagrant the contempt, the House of Commons
can only commit till the close of the existing session,"

Mark, Sir, if you please, how positive he is in his
language,

" can only commit till the close of the existing session. Their
privilege to commit is not better known than this limitation
of it. Though the party should deserve the severest penal-
ties, yet, his offence being committed the day before a proro-
gation, if the House ordered his imprisonment but for a week,
every court in Westminster Hall and every judge of all the
courts would be bound to discharge him by Habeas Corpus." 1

These were the words of the Lord Chief-Justice of
England in a most memorable case as late as 1839.
This is no ancient authority, but something modern
and of our day. It is not expressed in vague or uncer-
tain terms, but in language clear and positive. It is as
applicable to the Senate of the United States as to the
House of Commons. It is applicable to every legisla-
tive body sitting under a constitutional government.

1 Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings, and Usage of Parliament,
ut supra. Stockdale v. Hansard, 9 Adolphus & Ellis, 11., 114.

136 POWER OF THE SENATE

An attempt has been made to claim for the Senate
prerogatives which belong to the House of Lords. How
so ? Is the Senate a House of Lords ? Is it an hered-
itary body ? Is it a perpetual body in the sense that
the House of Lords is a perpetual body ? We know
that the House of Lords is in session the whole year
round. We know, that, according to a rule of the Civil
Law, " Tres faciunt collegium" J three make a quorum
in the House of Lords. So that the presence of three
peers at any time, duly summoned to the chamber, con-
stitutes a sufficient quorum for business. Therefore the
House of Lords has in it an essential element enabling
it to come together easily and to continue in perpetual
session. It is in its character, in the elements of its
privileges, clearly distinguishable from the Senate, as it
is clearly distinguishable from the House of Commons.
Such privileges as the Senate has are derived from the
House of Commons rather than from the House of
Lords, so far as they are derived from either of these
bodies.

Another attempt has been made, by criticizing the
word "prorogation," to find a distinction between the
two cases ; but a note to May's work on Parliamentary
Law, which I now have in my hand, meets that criti-
cism. After saying in the text that the prisoners com-
mitted by the House of Commons " are immediately
released from their confinement on a prorogation," the
note says :

"But this law never extended to an adjournment, even
when it was in the nature of a prorogation." 2

1 Digest., Lib. L. Tit rvi. Cap. 85.

* Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings, and Usage of Parliament,
and Stockdale v. Hansard, 9 Adolphus & Ellis, ut supra.

TO IMPEISON RECUSANT WITNESSES. 137

Take, for instance, the adjournments which habitually
occur in the British Parliament at the Christmas holi-
days, at the Easter holidays, at the Whitsuntide holi-
days. You saw in the papers, only the other day, that
Mr. Gladstone gave notice that the House of Commons
would adjourn over several days on account of the
Whitsuntide holidays; but nobody supposes that that
is in the nature of a " prorogation," or that a commit-
tal by order of the House of Commons would expire
on such an adjournment, as it would not expire on
our adjournment for our Christmas holidays.

Therefore do the very precedents of the British Par-
liament answer completely the case put by the Senator
from New York, who imagined a difficulty from oc-
casional adjournments at the Christmas holidays. Sir,
we are to look at this precisely as it is. The proroga-
tion of the House of Commons is an adjournment with-
out day, corresponding precisely to our adjournment
without day. I believe in Massachusetts, down to this
moment, when the Legislature has agreed upon the
time of its adjournment, it gives notice to the Governor,
who sends the Secretary of the Commonwealth to pro-
rogue it, and the Legislature is declared to be prorogued,
thus following the language so familiar in England.

Then it is argued that this power to commit may be
prolonged by a Committee to sit during the vacation.
But how so ? The Committee has no power to commit.
The power to commit comes from the Senate. How
does the sitting of the Committee in the vacation add to
its powers ? It has no such power while the Senate is
in session. How can it have any such power when the
Senate has closed its session ? But the power to pro-
tract the imprisonment of a citizen must be kindred
with that to imprison.

138 POWER OF THE SENATE

I dismiss the whole argument founded upon the pro-
longation of the Committee as entirely irrelevant. Pro-
long the Committee, if you please, till doomsday ; you
cannot by that in any way affect the liberty of the citi-
zen. The citizen is imprisoned only by the order of the
Senate, and the power to imprison or to detain expires
with the session. Such, Sir, is the rule that we have
borrowed from England. Nor am I alone in thus inter-
preting it. I cited, the other day, the authentic work
of the late Judge Gushing on the Law and Practice of
Legislative Assemblies. I will, with your permission,
read again his statement, as follows :

" According to the Parliamentary Law of England there is
a difference between the Lords and Commons in this respect :
the former being authorized, and the latter not, to imprison
for a period beyond the session."

That is the testimony of Judge Gushing, who had
devoted his life to the study of this subject. He then
goes on:

" In this country the power to imprison is either incidental
to or expressly conferred upon all our legislative assemblies ;
and in some of the States it is also regulated by express con-
stitutional provision."

Then he gives his conclusion :

" Where it is not so regulated, it is understood that the
imprisonment terminates with the session." 1

Mark, if you please, " terminates with the session."
Here you have the authentic words of this special
authority, interpreting the English Parliamentary Law,

1 Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies in the United States,
(Boston, 1863,) 677, p. 267.

TO IMPRISON RECUSANT WITNESSES. 139

and also declaring our law. Who is there that can go
behind these words ? What Senator will set up his re-
search or his conclusion against that of this exemplar ?
Who is there here that will venture to claim for the
Senate a prerogative which this American authority dis-
claims for legislative bodies in our country, unless ex-
pressly sanctioned by Constitutional Law ?

I have shown that this power to commit beyond the
session does not exist in the House of Commons, from
which we derive such prerogatives or privileges as we
have. But the stream cannot rise higher than the foun-
tain-head. How, then, if the power does not exist in
the House of Commons, can you find it here ? You
cannot trace the present assumption to any authentic,
legitimate fountain. If you attempt it, permit me to
say you will fail, and the assumption will appear with-
out authority, and therefore a usurpation. I so char-
acterize it, feeling that I cannot be called in question
when I use this strong language. If you undertake to
detain these prisoners beyond the expiration of this
session, you become usurpers, the Senate of the United
States usurps power that does not belong to it ; and, Sir,
this is more flagrant, when it is considered that it usurps
this power in order to wield it against the liberty of fel-
low-citizens.

When I state this conclusion, I feel that I stand on
supports that cannot be shaken. I stand on English
authorities sustained by American authorities. You
cannot find any exception. That in itself is an author-
ity. If you could mention an exception, I should put
it aside as an accident or an abuse, and not as an au-
thority. The rule is fixed and positive; and I now have
no hesitation in declaring that it will be the duty of the

140 POWER OF THE SENATE

judge, on a writ of Habeas Corpus, as soon as this Sen-
ate closes its session, to set these prisoners at liberty,
unless the Senate has the good sense in advance to au-
thorize their discharge. I do not doubt the power and
the duty of the Court. I am sure that no judge worthy
of a place on the bench will hesitate in this judgment.
Should he, I would read to him the simple words of the
Lord Chief- Justice of England on the very point :

" If the House ordered his imprisonment but for a week,
every court in Westminster Hall and every judge of all the
courts would be bound to discharge him by Habeas Corpus" 1

There is no way of answering those words. They are
as commanding on this occasion as if they were in the
very text of our Constitution. When I say this, I do
not speak vaguely ; for I am sure that every student of
this subject will admit that a judgment like that which
I have adduced on a question of Parliamentary Law,
and in favor of the rights of the subject, is of an author-
ity in our country equal to the Constitution itself.

This brings me, Sir, to an important point which I
had hoped not to be called to discuss, but which the
argument of the Senator from New York seems to press
upon the consideration of the Senate and of the country ;
and therefore I shall open it to your attention, even if I
do not discuss it. It is this : that, whatever may be the
power even in England by Parliamentary Law, it by no
means follows that the Senate of the United States has
that power.

What is the Senate ? A body created by a written

1 Stockdale v. Hansard, ut supra.

TO IMPEISON BECTJSANT WITNESSES. 141

Constitution, enjoying certain powers described and de-
fined in the Constitution itself. The Constitution says
nothing about contempt or punishment for contempt.
In order to obtain this power you must go into infer-
ence and deduction ; you must infer it or imply it. In
the case of impeachments the Senate becomes a judicial
body, and it is reasonable to infer that it may have the
power to compel the attendance of witnesses, in short,
the powers of a court. The Senate also, by express
terms of the Constitution, has the power to expel a
member. There again is an inquiry in its nature judi-
cial; and should the Senate on such occasion examine
witnesses and proceed as a court, it may be inferred
that it is so authorized by the Constitution. There is
also a third power which the Senate possesses, judicial
in character : it is to determine the election of its mem-
bers. Beyond these every power that the Senate un-
dertakes to exercise on this subject is derived by infer-
ence. It does not stand on any text of the Constitution.
It is a mere implication, and, being adverse to the rights
of the citizen, it must be construed strictly.

Now I am not ready to say, I do not say, that the
Senate has not the power to institute a proceeding like
that now in question. I am very clear that it has not
the power by compulsory process to compel witnesses
to testify in aid of legislation, as was once attempted in
what was known familiarly as the Harper's Ferry In-
vestigating Case. But I do not undertake to say that
it may not institute a proceeding like that in which we
are now engaged; yet I admit its legality with great
hesitation and with sincere doubt. I doubt whether
such an assumption can stand an argument in this
Chamber; I doubt whether it can stand a discussion

142 POWER OF THE SENATE

before a court of justice. How do you arrive at such a
power? The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. CARPENTER]
said, the other day, the Senate, according to the argu-
ments of certain Senators, has not the power of a justice
of the peace. The Senator never spoke truer words:
the Senate has not the power of a justice of the peace.
A justice of the peace is a court with the powers of a
court. The Senate of the United States is not a court,
except in the cases to which I have already referred.
It is a serious question whether it is a court in the pro-
ceeding which it has now seen fit to institute. Were it
a court, then the argument of the Senator from Wis-
consin might be applicable, and it might then claim the
privileges of a court. It might proceed, if you please,
to fine as well as to commit. The Senate in its dis-
cretion forbears to fine ; it contents itself with impris-
onment. But if it can imprison, why not fine ? Why
is not the whole catalogue of punishment open to its
grasp ?

I have reminded you, Sir, that our powers, whatever
they may be, are under a written Constitution, and in
this important respect clearly distinguishable from the
powers of the House of Commons, which are the growth
of tradition and immemorial usage. I am not the first
person to take this ground. I find it judicially asserted
in most authentic judgments, to which I beg to call the
attention of the Senate.

I have in my hands the fourth volume of Moore's
Privy Council Cases, cases argued in the Privy Council
of England, many of them being cases that have come
up from the Colonies, and here is one, being an appeal
from the Supreme Court of the island of Newfoundland.
I will read the marginal note :

TO IMPKISON RECUSANT WITNESSES. 143

" The House of Assembly of the island of Newfoundland
does not possess, as a legal incident, the power of arrest, with
a view of adjudication on a contempt committed out of the
House, but only such powers as are reasonably necessary
for the proper exercise of its functions and duties as a local
Legislature.

" Semble. The House of Commons possess this power
only by virtue of ancient usage and prescription, the Lex et
Consuetude Parliamenti.

" Semble. The Crown, by its prerogative, can create a
Legislative Assembly in a settled colony, subordinate to Par-
liament, but with supreme power within the limits of the
colony for the government of its inhabitants; but,

"Quaere. Whether it can bestow upon it an authority,
namely, that of committing for contempt, not incidental to it
by law I" 1

I will not take time in reading extracts from the
opinion of the Court, which goes on the ground that the
Legislature of the Colony is acting under a commission
from the Crown in the nature of a Constitution, being
a written text, and that it could not therefore claim for
itself those vast, immense, unknown privileges and pre-
rogatives which by long usage are recognized as belong-
ing to the House of Commons.

But the question was presented at a later day in an-
other case before the Privy Council, which came from
the Supreme Court of Van Diemen's Land. I cite now
Moore's Privy Council Cases, volume eleven. This case
was decided in 1858. It is therefore a recent authority.
The marginal note is as follows :

" The Lex et Consuetudo Parliamenti applies exclusively to
the House of Lords and House of Commons in England, and

1 Eielley v. Carson et als. : 4 Moore, Privy Council Cases, 63.

144 POWEK OF THE SENATE

is not conferred upon a Supreme Legislative Assembly of a
colony or settlement by the introduction of the Common
Law of England into the colony.

"No distinction in this respect exists between Colonial
Legislative Councils and Assemblies whose power is derived
by grant from the Crown or created under the authority of an
Act of the Imperial Parliament." l

You will see, Sir, that by this decision the powers of
a Legislative Assembly created by a Charter are limited
to the grants of the Charter, and that the mere creation
of the legislative body does not carry with it the Law
and Custom of Parliament. In the course of his opin-
ion Lord Chief-Baron Pollock uses the following lan-
guage. Alluding to the decision of the Privy Coun-
cil in the Newfoundland case, he says :

" They held that the power of the House of Commons in
England was part of the Lex et Consuetudo Parliamenti ; and
the existence of that power in the Commons of Great Britain
did not warrant the ascribing it to every Supreme Legislative
Council or Assembly in the Colonies. We think we are

bound by the decision of the case of Kielley v. Carson

If the Legislative Council of Van Diemen's Land cannot claim
the power they have exercised on the occasion before us as
inherently belonging to the supreme legislative authority
which they undoubtedly possess, they cannot claim it under
the statute as part of the Common Law of England (including
the Lex et Consuetudo Parliamenti) transferred to the Colony
by the 9th Geo. IV. c. 83, sect. 24. The Lex et Consuetudo
Parliamenti apply exclusively to the Lords and Commons of
this country, and do not apply to the Supreme Legislature of
a Colony by the introduction of the Common Law there." a

1 Fenton et al. v. Hampton : 11 Moore, Privy Council Cases. 347.
Ibid., 396 -97.

TO IMPRISON BECUSANT WITNESSES. 145

Now the question is directly presented by these de-
cisions, whether under the written text of the Constitu-
tion of the United States you can ingraft upon our in-
stitutions the Law and Custom of Parliament. So far
as these cases are applicable, they decide in the nega-
tive; but I will not press them to that extent I ad-
duce them for a more moderate purpose, simply to
put the Senate on its guard against any assumption of
power in this matter. I do not undertake to say to
what extent the Senate may go ; but with these author-
ities I warn it against proceeding on any doubtful prac-
tices. If there be any doubt, then do these authorities
cry out to you to stop.

I have said, Sir, that our powers here are limited by
the Constitution : I may add, also, and the Law in pur-
suance of the Constitution. And now I ask you to
show me any text of the Constitution, and to show me
any text of Law, which authorizes the detention of these
witnesses by the Senate. The Senate, be it understood,
is not a court. Certainly, for this purpose and on this
occasion, it is not a court. Show me the law. Does it
exist ? If it exists, some learned Senator can point it
out. But while Senators fail to point out any law sanc-
tioning such a procedure, I point out an immortal text
in the Constitution of the United States, borrowed from
Magna Charta, which it is difficult to disobey :

" No person shall be held to answer for a capital or other-
wise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment
of a Grand Jury, . . . nor be deprived of life, liberty, or prop-
erty, without due process of law."

"Without due process of law." What is the mean-

VOL. XIX. 10

146 POWER OF TIIE SENATE

ing of that language ? Judge Story l tells us, as fol-
lows :

" Lord Coke a says that these latter words, per legem terra,
( by the law of the land,) mean by due process of law: that is,
without due presentment or indictment, and heing brought in
to answer thereto by due process of the Common Law. So
that this clause in effect affirms the right of trial according to
the process and proceedings of the Common Law." '

There, Sir, is a living text of the Constitution of the
United States, binding upon this Senate. Where do
you find any other text authorizing you to institute this
proceeding ? or if you institute the proceeding, must it
not come within the limitations of this prohibition ?

But I may be reminded that there are precedents.
How many precedents are there for such a proceeding ?
We are familiar with all of them. The latest, the most
authentic, is that of Thaddeus Hyatt, proceeded against
because he refused to testify before the Harper's Ferry
Investigating Committee. Is that a precedent which,
you are disposed to follow ? I am sure you would not,
if you read the weighty argument in that proceeding
made by the late John A. Andrew, and Samuel E. Sew-
all, of Massachusetts, the accomplished jurist, who still
survives to us. Go still further back and you have the
case, entirely like that before us, of Nugent, who was
not pursued, I was going to say, as ferociously as the
present witnesses have been pursued, for his custody was
simply that of the house of the Sergeant-at-Arms, and

1 Quoting Magna Charta, " Nee super eum [libernm hominem] ibimus,
nee super etun raittemus, nisi per legale judicium parium suonim, vel per
legem ternc."

2 Fust., 50 -51.

Commentaries on the Constitution, 1783, Vol. III. p. 661.

TO IMPRISON RECUSANT WITNESSES. 147

it was recognized at that time that even that mild cus-
tody would expire with the session of the Senate. You
have also the earlier precedent of 1800 in the case of
Duane, which, I think, Senators would hesitate now to
vindicate. Let them look at it and see whether they
would sanction a similar proceeding at this day,
whether such a tyranny could go on without shocking
the public conscience, and being recognized universally
as an assault upon the liberty of the press. 1

Those are the cases furnished by the history of the
Senate. Lord Denman, in the case of StockdaU v. Han-
sard, the famous case to which I have referred, gives an
answer to them as follows : I quote from the ninth vol-
ume of Adolphus and Ellis's Keports, page 155 :

"The practice of a ruling power in the State is but a
feeble proof of its legality. I know not how long the prac-
tice of raising ship-money had prevailed before the right was
denied by Hampden ; general warrants had been issued and
enforced for centuries before they were questioned in actions
by Wilkes and his associates, who, by bringing them to the
test of law, procured their condemnation and abandonment.
I apprehend that acquiescence on this subject proves, in the
first place, too much ; for the admitted and grossest abuses of
privilege have never been questioi^d by suits in Westminster
HalL"

This proceeding has analogy with one well known in
English history, that of the Star-Chamber Court, which
you will find described by Mr. Hallam in his " Constitu-
tional History of England," in chapter eight, and I refer

* For the proceedings in this case, see Annals of Congress, 6th Cong. 1st
SCSR., Senate, at the pages referred to in the Index, under the title Aurora.
On the cases of Hyatt and Nugent, see, ante, pp. 132, 133, and the references
there named.

148 POWER OF THE SENATE

to it merely for the sake of one single sentence which I
cite from this great author :

" But precedents of usurped power cannot establish a legal
authority in defiance of the acknowledged law." 1

But where is the legal authority for the imprisonment
of these witnesses ? Only in mere inference, mere de-
duction, the merest inference ; but surely you will
not take away the liberty of the citizen on any such
shadowy, evanescent apology, which is no apology,
but a sham, and nothing else. I have already called at-
tention to the argument of Governor Andrew and Hon.
S. E. Sewall, which will be found in the Congressional
Globe under date of March 9, 1860. Did time permit,
I should quote from it at length ; but I commend it to
the Senate and all inquirers.

As an illustration of the doubts which environ this
question, I call attention to the case of Sanborn v. Carle-
ton? where Chief-Justice Shaw, of Massachusetts, gave
the opinion of the Court. The Senator from Wisconsin
[ Mr. CARPENTER] will not question his character. After
stating that " it is admitted in the arguments that there
is no express provision in the Constitution of the United
States giving this authority in terms," that is, the al-
leged authority of the Senate, he proceeds to say that
there are questions on this subject " manifestly requir-
ing great deliberation and research." And yet Senators
treat them as settled. The Chief-Justice then proceeds
to announce that a warrant issued by order of the Sen-
ate of the United States for the arrest of a witness for
contempt in refusing to appear before a Committee of

1 Vol. I. p. 448, 6th edition, London, 1850.
15 Gray's Reports, 399.

TO IMPRISON BECUSANT WITNESSES. 149

the Senate, and addressed only to the Sergeant-at-Arms
of the Senate, cannot be served in Massachusetts by a
deputy. But this very question arises in the present
proceedings. The managing editor of the "Tribune,"
Mr. Whitelaw Eeid, was summoned by a deputy, and
not by the Sergeant-at-Arms. Gracefully yielding to
the illegal summons, he appeared before the Committee;
but the question of power still remains ; and this very
question adds to the embarrassments of the subject.

The extent of the abuse now in question will be seen,
if I call the attention of the Senate to the last Eeport
of the Committee of Investigation. By that Eeport it
appears that they undertook to examine two agents of
the Telegraph Company, who, finally, at the last mo-
ment, when asked to make a definitive statement with
regard to the copy of the Treaty lodged with them for
communication to New York, declined to answer. And
you have now in this usurpation of the Senate an at-
tempt to break into the telegraph-offices of the United
States. You raise, for the first time in this Chamber,
one of the great questions of the times. Can you do
any such thing ?

MR. NYE [of Nevada]. I should like to ask the Senator
from Massachusetts if the courts have not broken into the
telegraph -offices 1

MR. SUMNER. I am not speaking about the courts. I
am speaking about the Senate of the United States.

MR. NYE. I ask the Senator if the Senate of the United
States, in this investigation, as long as it exists, has not all
the authority of a court?

MR, SUMNER. I have already stated that it has not,
that it has not the authority of a justice of the peace.

150 POWER OF THE SENATE

The Senate proposes to break into the telegraph-offices
of the United States. In the guise of privilege, it enters
those penetralia and insists that the secrets shall be dis-
closed. What is the difference between a communica-
tion by telegraph and a communication by letter ? Is
there not a growing substitution of the telegram for the
letter ? Has not this taken place to an immense extent
in England ? Is it not now taking place to an immense
extent in our own country ?

Now, Sir, mark the limitation of my language. I do
not mean to say that the telegram is entitled to all the
sacredness of the letter ; but I do insist that the Senate,
before it undertakes to break into the telegraph-offices
of the United States, shall calmly consider the question,
and see to what end the present disposition will carry
them. Senators who have not entirely forgotten the
recent history of England know that the powerful Cabi-
net of Sir Robert Peel for a time trembled under the im-
putation that one of its ablest members, Sir James Gra-
ham, who, Mr. Webster told me, in his judgment, was
the best speaker in Parliament, had authorized the open-
ing of the letters of Mazzini at the Post-Office. The
subject was brought before Parliament night after night.
You shall see how it was treated. The Liberal member
from Finsbury, Mr. Buncombe, in presenting it first,
I read from Hansard, after inveighing against the
opening of letters, said :

" That was a system which the people of this country-
would not bear, which they ought not to bear ; and he hoped,
after the exposure which had taken place, that some means-
would be adopted for counteracting this insidious conduct of
her Majesty's ministers. It was disgraceful to a free country
that such a system should be tolerated. It might do in Pvus-

TO IMPRISON RECUSANT WITNESSES. 151

sia, ay, or even in France, or it might do in the Austrian do-
minions, it might do in Sardinia ; bat it did not suit the free
air of this free country." *

Lord Denman, always on the side of Freedom, at the
time Chief-Justice of England, in the House of Lords
said:

"Could anything be more revolting to the feeling than
that any man might have all his letters opened in conse-
quence of some information respecting him having been given
to the Secretary of State, and that the contents of those let-
ters, which he might have never received, might be made use
of for the purpose of proceeding against him in a court of
Justice? The letters of a man might be opened, and he
might not have the slightest intimation that he was betrayed.
Now is such a state of things to be tolerated in a civilized
country? He would say, without the slightest hesitation,
that it ought not to be borne with for a single hour." 2

Lord Brougham, observed that

"He had not expressed any approval of the system; on
the contrary, he distinctly stated that nothing but absolute
necessity for the safety of the State uxruld justify it." 3

I might occupy your time till evening in adducing
the strong language of reprobation which was employed
at that time. I will conclude with an extract from a
speech of that remarkable Irish orator, Mr. Sheil, as fol-
lows :

" That which is deemed utterly scandalous in private life
ought not to be tolerated in any department of the State ; and

i Speech, June 14, 1844 : Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, 3d Series,
Vol. LXXV. col. 898-99.
Speech, June 17, 1844: Ibid., col. 980-81.
Ibid., col. 981.

152 POWER OF THE SENATE

>

from the Statute-Book, which it dishonors, this ignominious
prerogative ought to be effaced forever." ]

That brings me to the point, Sir, that there was an
old statute of Queen Anne which authorized the open-
ing of letters at the Post-Office under the order of a
Secretary of State ; 2 but, notwithstanding that old stat-
ute, the system was reprobated. And now it is pro-
posed, in the maintenance of the privileges of the Sen-
ate, not in the administration of justice before any
court, but in the enforcement of the privileges of the
Senate, to penetrate the secrets of the Telegraph. I
will not undertake to say that you cannot do it. I con-
tent myself now with calling attention to the magnitude
of the question, and adducing it as a new reason why
you should hesitate in this whole business. You see
to what it conducts. You see in what direction you,
are travelling. You see how, if you persevere, you
will shock the conscience and the sensibilities of the
American people.

I do not believe that the American people will will-
ingly see the Telegraph rifled, any more than they will
see the Post-Office rifled, in order to maintain medieval,
antediluvian privileges of the Senate, especially when
those privileges cannot be deduced from any text of the
Constitution, but are simply inferred from the ancient,
primeval Law and Usage of Parliament. Not only the
orators, but the wits of the time, denounced the attempt
in England to open letters. Punch caricatured the Sec-
retary who attempted it as "Paul Pry at the Post-
Office." a But is not the Senate in the Report of our
Committee " Paul Pry at the Telegraph-Office ? "

i Speech, June 24, 1844: Hansard, 3d Series, Vol. LXXV. coL 1292.
1 9 Ann., cap. 10, 40.
Vol. VII. p. 7, cartoon.

TO IMPRISON RECUSANT WITNESSES. 153

I make these remarks with a view of opening to the
Senate the importance of the question before them, that
they may once more hesitate and withdraw to the safe
ground of the Constitution and the Law ; for there is
nothing in the Constitution or in the Law that can sanc-
tion the continued imprisonment of these witnesses.
Even suppose your proceedings have been from the be-
ginning in all respects just and proper, even suppose
that you can vindicate them, in regard to which I beg
leave to express a sincere doubt, you cannot vindicate
the attempt to continue these witnesses in custody when
you go away. Then they are as free as you. If they
are detained in prison, it is only because you yourselves
are imprisoned here in the discharge of your responsible
duties. When your imprisonment comes to an end,
theirs comes to an end also. You cannot go home and
leave them captives. The Law will step in and take
them from your clutch. Better, then, in advance, by a
proper and generous resolution, to order their discharge,
so that the Law will not be compelled to do what you
fail to do.

The resolution was agreed to, Yeas 23, Nays 13.

THE HAITIAN MEDAL.

RESPONSE TO THE LETTER OP PRESENTATION,
JULY 13, 1871.

THE Medal was placed in Mr. Sumner's hands July 13, 1871, by
General Preston, the Haytian Minister, together with the following
letter, signed by the President and several distinguished citizens of the
Republic :

" LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY !

REPUBLIC OF HAYTI.
" To the Hon. Charles Sumner, Senator of Massachusetts :

" HONORABLE SENATOR, The independence of Hayti has been our object.
To affirm the aptitude of the black race for civilization and self-government,
by your eloquence and your high morality you have made free four mil-
lions of blacks in the United States. In defending our independence on two
solemn occasions, you have protected and defended something more august
even than the liberty of the blacks in America. It is the dignity of a black
people seeking to place itself, by its own efforts, at the banquet of the civ-
ilized world. Hayti thanks you. She will be able to justify your esteem,
and to maintain herself at the height of her mission, marching in the path
of progress. In the name of the Haytian people, we pray you to accept, as
a feeble testimony of its gratitude, this medal, which will perpetuate in
ages to come the recollection of the services which you have rendered to ua
as citizens of the world, and to black Humanity."

Mr. Sumner at the time expressed his gratitude, and said that he
would communicate with the signers in writing. That same evening
lie sent an informal note to the Minister, saying that he feared he
should feel constrained to decline the present, and subsequently replied
to the letter of presentation as follows :

THE HAYTIAN MEDAL. 155

WASHINGTON, July 13, 1871.

/GENTLEMEN", ! have received to-day, by the
V7~ hands of your Minister at Washington, the beau-
tiful medal which you have done me the honor of pre-
senting to me in the name of the Haytian people, to-
gether with the accompanying communication bearing
so many distinguished names, among which I recognize
that of the estimable President of the Republic. Allow
me to say, most sincerely, that I do not deserve this to-
ken, nor the flattering terms of your communication. I
am only one of many who have labored for the enfran-
chisement of the African race, and who yet stand ready
to serve at all times the sacred cause ; nor have I done
anything except in the simple discharge of duty. I
could not have done otherwise without the rebuke of
my conscience.

In this service I have acted always under promptings
which with me were irresistible. Like you, I hail the
assured independence of Hayti as important in illustrat-
ing the capacity of the African race for self-government ;
and I rejoice to know that distinguished Haytians rec-
ognize the necessity of clinging to national life, not
only for the sake of their own Eepublic, but as an ex-
ample for the benefit of that vast race over which the
white man has so long tyrannized. Your successful in-
dependence will be the triumph of the black man every-
where, in all the isles of the sea, and in all the unknown
expanse of the African continent, marking a great epoch
of civilization. In cultivating a sentiment of nation-
ality, you will naturally insist upon that equality among
nations which is your right. Self-government implies
self-respect. In the presence of International Law all

156 TIIE HAYTIAN MEDAL.

nations are equal. As well deprive a citizen of equality
before the law as deprive a nation. You will also insist
upon that Christian rule, as applicable to nations as to
individuals, of doing unto others as you would have
them do unto you. Following it always in your own
conduct, and expecting others to follow it towards you,
will you ever forget that sentiment of Humanity by
which all men are one, with common title, with com-
mon right?

I rejoice, again, in the assurance you give that Hayti
is prepared to advance in the path of Progress. Here I
offer my best wishes, with the ardent aspiration that the
two good angels, Education and Peace, may be her guides
and support in this happy path. With education for
the people, and with peace, foreign and domestic, espe-
cially everywhere on the island, the independence of
Hayti will be placed beyond the assaults of force or the
intrigues of designing men, besides being an encour-
agement to the African race everywhere.

I trust that you will receive with indulgence these
frank words in response to the communication with
which you have honored me : they will show at least
my constant sympathy with your cause.

And now, Gentlemen, I throw myself again on your
indulgence, while expressing the hope that you will not
suspect me of insensibility to your generous present, if
I add, that, considering the text of the Constitution of
the United States and the service you have intended to
commemorate, I deem it my duty to return the beauti-
ful medal into your hands. To this I am constrained
by the spirit, if not by the letter of the Constitution,
which forbids any person in my situation from accept-
ing any present of any kind whatever from a foreign

THE HAYTIAN MEDAL. 157

State. Though this present is not strictly from the
State of Hayti, yet, when I observe, that, according to
the flattering inscription, it is from the Haytian people,
and that the communication accompanying it is signed
by the President and eminent magistrates of Hayti, and
still further that it is in recognition of services rendered
by me as a Senator of the United States, I feel that I
cannot receive it without acting in some measure con-
trary to the intention of the Constitution which I am
bound to support. In arriving at this conclusion I have
been governed by that same sense of duty which on the
occasions to which you refer made me your advocate,
and which with me is a supreme power. While thus
resigning this most interesting token, I beg you to be-
lieve me none the less grateful for the signal honor you
have done me.

Accept for yourselves and for your country all good
wishes, and allow me to subscribe myself, Gentlemen,
Your devoted friend,

CHARLES SUMNER.

The medal was subsequently presented by the Haytian Government
to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and deposited in the State
Library.

EQUALITY OF RIGHTS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

LETTER TO GEORGE W. WALKER, PRESIDENT OP THE BOARD
OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS OP JEFFERSON, TEXAS, JULY 28,
1871.

MR. WALKER having written to Mr. Sumner, asking his views in
regard to the management of public schools, &c., the latter replied
as follows :

WASHINGTON, 28th July, 1871.

DEAR SIR, As in Europe there will be no dura-
ble tranquillity until Republican Government
prevails, so among us there will be a similar failure un-
til Equality before the Law is completely established,
at the ballot-box, in the court-house, in the pub-
lic school, in the public hotel, and in the public
conveyance, whether on land or water. At least, so it
seems to me.

I doubt if I can add materially to the argument
which you have already received, but, with your per-
mission, I ask attention to the point that equality is
not found in equivalents. You cannot give the colored
child any equivalent for equality.

Accept my best wishes, and believe me, dear Sir,
Faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

PEACE AND THE REPUBLIC FOR FRANCE.

REMARKS IN Music HALL, BOSTON, INTRODUCING M. ATHA-

NASE COQUEREL, OF PARIS, OCTOBER 9, 1871.

AT the first of two lectures entitled "The Two Sieges of Paris,"
by M. Coquerel, Mr. Sumner, being called to preside, said :

I CANNOT forget, Ladies and Gentlemen, that in
other years the enjoyments of Paris were height-
ened for me, as I listened, more than once, to an elo-
quent French preacher, on whose words multitudes
hung with rapture while he unfolded Christian truth.
The scene, though distant in time, rises before me, and
I enjoy again that voice of melody, and that rare union
of elegance with earnestness, of amenity with strength,
which were so captivating ; nor do I know that I have
since witnessed in any pulpit or assembly, or on any
platform, more magnetic power visibly appearing as
the orator drew to himself the listening throng, and all
commingled into one.

It is now my grateful duty to welcome the son of
that orator, who, with his father's genius, visits us on an
errand of charity.

He will speak to you of Paris the Beautiful, and of
the double tragedy only recently enacted, where the
bursting shells of a foreign foe were followed by the

160 PEACE AND THE REPUBLIC FOR FRANCE.

more direful explosions of domestic feud. The story is
sad, among the saddest in history ; but it is a wonder-
ful chapter, with most instructive lesson.

Knowing our honored guest by his life, I am sure
that to him war is detestable, while Republican Govern-
ment is his aspiration for France. Were all Frenchmen
of his mind, the deadly war-fever would disappear, and
the Eepublic would be established on a foundation not
to be shaken; and then would France rise to glories
which she has never before reached. Plainly, at this
epoch of civilization, there are two Great Command-
ments wliich this powerful nation cannot disobey with
impunity. The first is Peace; and the second, which
is like unto the first, is the Republic. But the Re-
public is Peace, most unlike the Empire, which was
always war in disguise.

It is sometimes said, somewhat lightly, that France
is a Republic without Republicans. A great mistake.
Was not Lafayette a Republican ? And I now have
the honor of presenting to you another.

THE GREAT FIRE AT CHICAGO, AND OUR DUTY,

SPEECH AT FANEUIL HALL, AT A MEETING FOB THE EELIEF
OF SUFFERERS AT CHICAGO, OCTOBER 10, 1871.

THE meeting was at noon, and the chair taken by the Mayor, Hon.
William Gaston. Hon. Alexander H. Rice introduced resolutions, and
spoke, when Mr. Sumner followed :

MR. MAYOR AND FELLOW-CITIZENS :

I COME forward to second the resolutions moved by
my friend Mr. Rice, and to express my hope that
they may be adopted unanimously, and then acted upon
vigorously.

Fellow-Citizens, I had expected to be elsewhere to-
day ; but, thinking of the distress of distant friends and
countrymen, my heart was too full for anything else,
and, putting aside other things, I have come to Faneuil
Hall, as a simple volunteer, to help swell this movement
of sympathy and beneficence.

This is a meeting for action ; but are we not told that
eloquence is action, action, action ? And most true is it
now. Help for the suffering is the highest eloquence.
The best speech is a subscription. And he is the orator
whose charity is largest.

"Thrice he gives who quickly gives." This is a fa-
miliar saying from the olden time. Never was it more

VOL. XIX. 11

162 THE GREAT FIRE AT CHICAGO,

applicable than now. Destruction has been swift; let
your gifts be swift also. If the Angel Charity is not
as quick of wing as the Fire-Fiend, yet it is more
mighty and far-reaching. Against the Fire-Fiend I
put the Angel Charity.

According to another saying handed down by ancient
philosophy, that is the best government where a wrong
to a single individual is resented as an injury to all.
This sentiment is worthy of careful meditation. It im-
plies the solidarity of the community, and the duty of
cooperation. There is no wrong now, but an immense
calamity, in which individuals suffer. Be it our duty to
treat this calamity of individuals as the calamity of all.

Who does not know Chicago ? Most have visited it,
and seen it with the eye ; but all know its pivotal posi-
tion, making a great centre, and also its immense growth
and development. In a few years, beginning as late as
1833, it has become a great city; and now it is called to
endure one of those visitations which in times past have
descended upon great cities. Much as it suffers, it is
not alone. The catalogue discloses companions in the
past.

The fire of London, in September, 1666, raged from
Sunday to Thursday, with the wind blowing a gale, re-
ducing two-thirds of the city to ashes. Thirteen thou-
sand two hundred houses M r ere consumed, and eighty-nine
churches, including St. Paul's, covering three hundred
and seventy-three acres within and sixty-three without
the walls. The value of buildings and property burned
was estimated at between ten and twelve millions ster-
ling, which, making allowance for difference of values,
now would be more than one hundred million dollars.
I doubt if the population of London then was larger than

AND OUR DUTY. 163

that of Chicago. And yet an English historian, recount-
ing this event, says, " Though severe at the time, this
visitation contributed materially to the improvement of
the city." J

Ancient Kome had her terrible conflagration, hardly
less sweeping, when populous quarters were devoured
by the irresistible flame; and history records that out of
this destruction sprang a new life.

Is there not in these examples a lesson of encourage-
ment for Chicago sitting now in ashes ? A great fire in
other days was worse than a great fire now ; for then it
was borne in solitude by the place where it occurred;
now the whole country rushes forward to bear it, mak-
ing common cause with the sufferers. I cannot doubt
that out of this great calamity, which we justly deplore,
will spring improvement. Everything will be bettered.
The city thus far has been a growth ; it will become at
once a creation. But future magnificence, filling the
imagination, will not feed the hungry and clothe the
naked, nor will it provide homes for the destitute. The
future cannot take care of the present. This is our
duty, and it is all expressed in Charity.

Other speakers followed. The resolutions were adopted, and a sub-
scription was commenced at once.

i Encyclopaedia Britannica, (8th edition,) arts. BRITAIN and LONDON:
Vols. V. pp. 424-25 ; XIII. 659.

RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF OUR COLORED
FELLOW-CITIZENS.

LETTER TO THE NATIONAL CONVENTION OF COLORED CITIZENS
AT COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, OCTOBER 12, 1871.

THIS letter was read in the Convention October 24th, the sixth day
of its sitting, and received a vote of thanks.

BOSTON, October 12, 1871.

DEAR SIR, I am glad that our colored fellow-
citizens are to have a Convention of their own.
So long as they are excluded from rights or suffer in
any way on account of color, they will naturally meet
together in order to find a proper remedy; and since
you kindly invite me to communicate with the Conven-
tion, I make hold to offer a few brief suggestions.

In the first place, you must at all times insist upon
your rights ; and here I mean not only those already
accorded, but others still denied, all of which are con-
tained in Equality before the Law. Wherever the law
supplies a rule, there you must insist on Equal Rights.
How much remains to be obtained you know too well
in the experience of life.

Can a respectable colored citizen travel on steamboats
or railways, or public conveyances generally, without

OUR COLORED FELLOW - CITIZENS. 165

insult on account of color? Let Governor Dunn of
Louisiana describe Ms journey from New Orleans to
Washington. Shut out from proper accommodation in
the cars, the doors of the Senate Chamber opened to him,
and there he found that equality which a railroad con-
ductor had denied. Let our excellent friend, Frederick
Douglass, relate his melancholy experience, when, on
board the mail-boat of the Potomac and within sight of
the Executive Mansion, he was thrust back from the
supper-table, where his brother Commissioners were al-
ready seated. You know the outrage.

I might ask the same question with regard to hotels,
and even the common schools. A hotel is a legal insti-
tution, and so is a common school, and as such each
must be for the equal benefit of all. Nor can there be
any exclusion from either on account of color. It is not
enough to provide separate accommodations for colored
citizens, even if in all respects as good as those of other
persons. Equality is not found in any pretended equiv-
alent, but only in equality ; in other words, there must
be no discrimination on account of color.

The discrimination is an insult, a hindrance, a bar,
which not only destroys comfort and prevents equality,
but weakens all other rights. The right to vote will
have no security until your equal rights in the public
conveyances, hotels, and common schools are at last es-
tablished; but here you must insist for yourselves by
speech, by petition, and by vote. Help yourselves, and
others will help also.

The Civil Eights Law needs a supplement to cover
these cases. This defect has been apparent from the
beginning, and for a long time I have striven to remove
it. A bill for this purpose, introduced by me, is now

166 EIGHTS AND DUTIES OF

pending in the Senate. Will not colored fellow-citizens
see that those in power no longer postpone this essen-
tial safeguard? Surely here is an object worthy of
effort. Nor has the Eepublican party done its work
until this is accomplished.

Is it not better to establish all our own people in
the enjoyment of equal rights before we seek to bring
others within the sphere of our institutions, to be
treated as Frederick Douglass was on his way to the
President from San Domingo ? It is easy to see that a
small part of the means, the energy, and the determined
will spent in the expedition to San Domingo, and in the
prolonged war-dance about that island, with menace to
the Black Republic of Hayti, would have secured all
our colored fellow-citizens in the enjoyment of equal
rights. Of this there can be no doubt.

Among cardinal objects is Education, which must be
insisted on ; here again must be equality, side by side
with the alphabet. It is vain to teach . equality, if you
do not practise it. It is vain to recite the great words
of the Declaration of Independence, if you do not make
them a living reality. What is a lesson without ex-
ample ?

As all are equal at the ballot-box, so must all be
equal at the common school. Equality in the common
school is the preparation for equality at the ballot-
box. Therefore do I put this among the essentials of
education.

In asserting your rights, you will not fail to insist
upon justice to all, under which is necessarily included
purity in the Government. Thieves and money-chang-
ers, whether Democrats or Republicans, must be driven
out of our Temple. Let Tammany Hall and Republican

OUR COLORED FELLOW -CITIZENS. 167

self-seekers be overthrown. There should be no place
for either. Thank God, good men are coming to the
rescue. Let them, while uniting against corruption, in-
sist upon Equal Eights for All, also the suppression
of lawless violence, whether in the Ku-Klux-Klan out-
raging the South, or illicit undertakings outraging the
Black Eepublic of HaytL

To these inestimable objects add Specie Payments,
and you will have a platform which ought to be accept-
ed by the American people. Will not our colored fel-
low-citizens begin this good work? Let them at the
same time save themselves and save the country.

These are only hints, which I submit to the Conven-
tion, hoping that its proceedings will tend especially to
the good of the colored race.

Accept my thanks and best wishes, and believe me
faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.
HON. H. M. TUENBB.

ONE TERM FOR PRESIDENT.

RESOLUTION AND KEMARKS IN THE SENATE,
DECEMBER 21, 1871.

MR PRESIDENT, In pursuance of notice already-
given, I ask leave to introduce a Joint Resolution
proposing an Amendment of the Constitution confining
the President to one term. In introducing this Amend-
ment I content myself with a brief remark.

This is the era of Civil Service Reform, and the Pres-
ident of the United States, in formal Message, has al-
ready called our attention to the important subject, and
made recommendations with regard to it. 1 It may be
remembered that I hailed that Message at once, as it
was read from the desk. I forbore then to observe that
I missed one recommendation, a very important recom-
mendation, without which all the other recommenda-
tions, I fear, may be futile. I missed a recommenda-
tion in conformity with the best precedents of our his-
tory, and with the opinions of illustrious men, that the
Constitution be amended so as to confine the President
to one term.

Sir, that is the initial point of Civil Service Reform ;
that is the first stage in the great reform. The scheme

1 Annual Message, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., December 5, 1870.

ONE TEEM FOR PRESIDENT. 169

of the President is the play of " Hamlet " without Ham-
let. I propose by the Amendment that I offer to see
that Hamlet is brought into the play. I send the reso-
lution to the Chair.

MB. BAYARD. I should like to have that paper read for
the information of the Senate.

THE PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Joint Resolution will
be read at length.

The Chief Clerk read as follows :

Joint Resolution proposing an Amendment of the Constitu-
tion, confining the President to One Term.

"Whereas for many years there has been an increasing
conviction among the people, without distinction of
party, that one wielding the vast patronage of the Pres-
ident should not be a candidate for reelection, and this
conviction has found expression in the solemn warnings
of illustrious citizens, and in repeated propositions for
an Amendment of the Constitution confining the Presi-
dent to one term :

Whereas Andrew Jackson was so fully impressed by
the peril to Republican Institutions from the tempta-
tions acting on a President, who, wielding the vast pat-
ronage of his office, is a candidate for reelection, that,
in his first Annual Message, he called attention to it ; l
that, in his second Annual Message, after setting forth
the design of the Constitution "to secure the indepen-
dence of each department of the Government, and pro-
mote the healthful and equitable administration of all
the trusts which it has created," he did not hesitate to

l Annual Message, 21st Cong. 1st Sess., December 8, 1829.

170 ONE TERM FOR PRESIDENT.

say, " The agent most likely to contravene this design of
the Constitution is the Chief Magistrate," and then pro-
ceeded to declare, "In order particularly that his ap-
pointment may as far as possible be placed beyond the
reach of any improper influences ; in order that he may
approach the solemn responsibilities of the highest office
in the gift of a free people uncommitted to any other
course than the strict line of constitutional duty ; and
that the securities for this independence may be ren-
dered as strong as the nature of power and the weakness
of its possessor will admit, I cannot too earnestly invite
your attention to the propriety of promoting such an
Amendment of the Constitution as will render him in-
eligible after one term of service " ; 1 and then, again, in
his third Annual Message, the same President renewed
this patriotic appeal : 2

Whereas William Henry Harrison, following in the
footsteps of Andrew Jackson, felt it a primary duty, in
accepting his nomination as President, to assert the
One-Term principle in these explicit words : "Among
the principles proper to be adopted by any Executive
sincerely desirous to restore the Administration to its
original simplicity and purity, I deem the following to
be of prominent importance : first, to confine his service
to a single term " ; 3 and then, in public speech during
the canvass which ended in his election, declared, " If
the privilege of being President of the United States
had been limited to one term, the incumbent would
devote all his time to the public interest, and there
would be no cause to misrule the country " ; and he con-

1 Animal Message, 21st Cong. 2d Sess., December 7, 1830.
Annual Message, 22d Cong. 1st Sess., December 6, 1831.
Letter to Harmer Denny, December 2, 1838, cited in Letter of Accept-
ance, December 19, 1839 : Niles's Register, VoL LV. p. 361 ; LVII. 379.

ONE TERM FOR PRESIDENT. 171

eluded by pledging himself " before Heaven and Earth,
if elected President of these United States, to lay down,
at the end of the term, faithfully, that high trust at the
feet of the people": 1

Whereas Henry Clay, though differing much from
Andrew Jackson, united with him on the One-Term
principle, and publicly enforced it in a speech, June
27, 1840, where, after asking for "a provision to ren-
der a person ineligible to the office of President of the
United States after a service of one term," he explained
the necessity of the Amendment by saying, " Much ob-
servation and deliberate reflection have satisfied me
that too much of the time, the thoughts, and the exer-
tions of the incumbent are occupied during his first
term in securing his reelection : the public business con-
sequently suffers " ; 2 and then, again, in a letter dated
September 13, 1842, while setting forth what he calls
" principal objects engaging the common desire and the
common exertion of the Whig party," the same states-
man specifies " an Amendment of the Constitution,
limiting the incumbent of the Presidential office to a
single term " : 8

Whereas the Whig party, in its National Convention
at Baltimore, May 1, 1844, nominated Henry Clay as
President and Theodore Frelinghuysen as Vice-Presi-
dent, with a platform where " a single term for the Pres-
idency " is declared to be among " the great principles
of the Whig party, principles inseparable from the pub-
lic honor and prosperity, to be maintained and advanced

1 Speech at the Dayton Convention,September 10, 1840: Niles's Register,
VoL LIX. p. 70.

* Speech at Tayloreville, Hanover County, Virginia, June 27, 1840:
Works, Vol. VL p. 421.

* Letter to the Young Men of Philadelphia : National Intelligencer, Sep-
tember 26, 1842.

172 ONE TERM FOR PRESIDENT.

"by the election of these candidates " ; J which declara-
tion was echoed at the great National Ratification Con-
vention the next day, addressed by Daniel Webster,
where it was resolved that " the limitation of a Presi-
dent to a single term " was among the objects " for
which the Whig party will unceasingly strive until
their efforts are crowned with a signal and triumphant
success": 2

Whereas, in the same spirit and in harmony with
these authorities, another statesman, Benjamin F. Wade,
at the close of his long service in the Senate, most ear-
nestly urged an Amendment of the Constitution confin-
ing the President to one term, and in his speech on
that occasion, February 20, 1866, said, " The offering of
this resolution is no new impulse of mine, for I have
been an advocate of the principle contained in it for
many years, and I have derived the strong impressions
which I entertain on the subject from a very careful
observation of the workings of our Government during
the period that I have been an observer of them; I
believe it has been very rare that we have been able
to elect a President of the United States who has not
been tempted to use the vast powers intrusted to him
according to his own opinions to advance his reelec-
tion" ; and then, after exposing at length the necessity
of this Amendment, the veteran Senator further de-
clared, "There are defects in the Constitution, and this
is among the most glaring ; all men have seen it ; and
now let us have the nerve, let us have the resolution
to come up and apply the remedy": 8

1 National Intelligencer, May 2, and Boston Daily Advertiser, May 6,
1844.

2 National Intelligencer, May 4, 1844.

* Congressional Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess., p. 932.

ONE TERM FOR PRESIDENT. 173

Whereas these testimonies, revealing intense and
wide-spread convictions of the American people, are
reinforced by the friendly observations of De Tocque-
ville, the remarkable Frenchman to whom our country
is under such great and lasting obligations, in his fa-
mous work on " Democracy in America," where he says,
in words of singular clearness and force, " Intrigue and
corruption are vices natural to elective Governments;
but when the chief of the State can be reelected, these
vices extend themselves indefinitely, and compromise
the very existence of the country : when a simple can-
didate seeks success by intrigue, his manoeuvres can
operate only over a circumscribed space ; when, on the
contrary, the chief of the State himself enters the lists,
he borrows for his own use the force of the Government :
in the first case, it is a man, with his feeble means ; in
the second, it is the State itself, with its immense re-
sources, that intrigues and corrupts " : J and then, again,
the same great writer, who had studied our country so
closely, testifies : " It is impossible to consider the ordi-
nary course of affairs in the United States without per-
ceiving that the desire to be reelected dominates the
thoughts of the President ; that the whole policy of his
Administration tends toward this point ; that his least
movements are made subservient to this object; that,
especially as the moment of crisis approaches, individ-
ual interest substitutes itself in his mind for the gen-
eral interest " : 2

Whereas all these concurring voices, where patriot-
ism, experience, and reason bear testimony, have addi-

1 De la D&nocratie en AmSrique, Tom. I. Ch. VUL, De la Reelection du
President.

2 Ibid.

174 ONE TERM FOR PRESIDENT.

tional value at a moment when the country is looking
anxiously to a reform of the civil service, for the plain
reason that the peril from the Chief Magistrate, so long
as he is exposed to temptation, surpasses that from any
other quarter, and thus the first stage in this much-de-
sired reform is the One-Term principle, to the end that
the President, who exercises the appointing power,
reaching into all parts of the country and holding in
subserviency a multitudinous army of office-holders,
shall be absolutely without motive or inducement to
employ it for any other purpose than the public good :

And whereas the character of Eepublican Institutions
requires that the Chief Magistrate shall be above all
suspicion of using the machinery of which he is the
official head to promote his own personal aims : There-
fore,

Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives, <&c., That the following Article is hereby proposed
as an Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, and, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-
fourths of the several States, shall be valid, to all in-
tents and purposes, as part of the Constitution ; to wit :

ARTICLE .

SEC. 1. No person who has once held the office of
President of the United States shall be thereafter eli-
gible to that office.

SEC. 2. This Amendment shall not take effect until
after the 4th March, 1873.

On motion of Mr. Stunner, the resolution was ordered to lie on the
table, and be printed.

THE BEST PORTRAITS IN ENGRAVING.

ARTICLE IN "THE CITY," AN ILLUSTRATED MAGAZINE,
YORK, JANUARY 1, 1872.

T71NGRAVING is one of the Fine Arts, and in this
Ij beautiful family has been the especial hand-
maiden of Painting. Another sister is now coming
forward to join this service, lending to it the charm
of color. If, in our day, the " Chromo " can do more
than Engraving, it cannot impair the value of the ear-
ly masters. With them there is no rivalry or com-
petition. Historically, as well as aesthetically, they
will be masters always.

Everybody knows something of engraving, as of print-
ing, with which it was associated in origin. School-
books, illustrated papers, and shop-windows are the or-
dinary opportunities open to all. But, while creating a
transient interest, or perhaps quickening the taste, they
furnish little with regard to the art itself, especially in
other days. And yet, looking at an engraving, like look-
ing at a book, may be the beginning of a new pleasure
and a new study.

Each person has his own story. Mine is simple.
Suffering from continued prostration, disabling me from
the ordinary activities of life, I turned to engravings for

176 THE BEST PORTRAITS IN ENGRAVING.

employment and pastime. With the invaluable assist-
ance of that devoted connoisseur, the late Dr. Thies, I
went through the Gray Collection at Cambridge, enjoy-
ing it like a picture-gallery. Other collections in our
country were examined also. Then, in Paris, while
undergoing severe medical treatment, my daily medicine
for weeks was the vast cabinet of engravings, then called
Imperial, now National, counted by the million, where
was everything to please or instruct. Thinking of those
kindly portfolios, I make this record of gratitude, as to
benefactors. Perhaps some other invalid, seeking occu-
pation without burden, may find in them the solace that
I did. Happily, it is not necessary to visit Paris for
the purpose. Other collections, on a smaller scale, will
furnish the same remedy.

In any considerable collection Portraits occupy an
important place. Their multitude may be inferred,
when I mention that in one series of portfolios in the
Paris Cabinet I counted no less than forty-seven por-
traits of Franklin and forty-three of Lafayette, with an
equal number of Washington, while all the early Presi-
dents were numerously represented. But in this large
company there are very few possessing artistic value.
The great portraits of modern times constitute a very
short list, like the great poems or histories ; and it is the
same with engravings as with pictures. Sir Joshua
Reynolds, explaining the difference between an histori-
cal painter and a portrait-painter, remarks that the for-
mer " paints man in general ; a portrait-painter a par-
ticular man, and consequently a defective model." l A
portrait, therefore, may be an accurate presentment of
its subject without aesthetic value.

1 Discourse IV.

THE BEST PORTRAITS IN ENGRAVING. 177

But here, as in other things, genius exercises its ac-
customed sway without limitation. Even the diffi-
culties of "a defective model" did not prevent Raph-
ael, Titian, Rembrandt, Rubens, Velasquez, or Van Dyck
from producing portraits precious in the history of Art.
It would be easy to mention heads by Raphael yielding
in value to only two or three of his larger masterpieces,
like the Dresden Madonna. Charles the Fifth stooped
to pick up the pencil of Titian, saying, "It becomes
Caesar to serve Titian!" True enough; but this unpre-
cedented compliment from the imperial successor of
Charlemagne attests the glory of the portrait-painter.
The female figures of Titian, so much admired under
the names of Flora, La Bella, his Daughter, his Mistress,
and even his Venus were portraits from life. Rem-
brandt turned from his great triumphs in his own pecul-
iar school to portraits of unwonted power; so also did
Rubens, showing that in this department his universality
of conquest was not arrested. To these must be added
Velasquez and Van Dyck, each of infinite genius, who
won fame especially as portrait-painters. And what
other title has Sir Joshua himself?

Historical pictures are often collections of portraits
arranged so as to illustrate an important event. Such
is the famous Peace of Munster, by Terburg, just present-
ed by a liberal Englishman to the National Gallery at
London. Here are the plenipotentiaries of Spain and the
United Provinces joining in the ratification of the treaty
which, after eighty years of war, gave peace and inde-
pendence to the latter. 1 The engraving by Suyderhoef

1 On the subject of this picture, see Wornum, Descriptive and Historical
Catalogue of the Pictures in the National Gallery, Foreign Schools, p. 288;
also, Laronsse, Dictionnaire Universel, Tom. IV. p. 932, art. CONCURS DK
MUNSTKB.

VOL. XIX. 12

178 THE BEST PORTRAITS IN ENGRAVING.

is rare and interesting. Similar in character is The
Death of Chatham, by Copley, where the illustrious
statesman is surrounded by the peers he had been ad-
dressing, every one a portrait. To this list must be
added the pictures by Trumbull in the Kotunda of the
Capitol at Washington, especially The Declaration of
Independence, in wliich Thackeray took a sincere inter-
est Standing before these, the author and artist said to
me, "These are the best pictures in the country," and
he proceeded to remark on their honesty and fidelity ;
but doubtless their real value is in their portraits.

Unquestionably the finest assemblage of portraits
anywhere is that of the artists occupying two halls in
the Uffizi Gallery at Florence, being autographs con-
tributed ly the masters themselves. Here is Raphael,
with chestnut-brown hair, and dark eyes full of sensibil-
ity, painted when he was twenty-three, and known by
the engraving of Forster, Giulio Romano, in black and
red chalk on paper, Masaccio, one of the fathers of
painting, much admired, Leonardo da Vinci, beautiful
and grand, Titian, rich and splendid, Pietro Peru-
gino, remarkable for execution and expression, Albert
Diirer, rigid, but masterly, Gerard Dow, finished ac-
cording to his own exacting style, and Reynolds, with
fresh English face : but these are only examples of this
incomparable collection, which was begun as far back as
the Cardinal Leopoldo de' Medici, and has been happi-
ly continued to the present time. Here are the lions,
painted by themselves, except, perhaps, the foremost
of all, Michel Angelo, whose portrait seems the work of
another. The impression from this collection is con-
firmed by that of any group of historic artists. Their
portraits excel those of statesmen, soldiers, or divines,

THE BEST PORTRAITS IN ENGRAVING. 179

as is easily seen by engravings accessible to alL The
engraved heads in Arnold Houbraken's biographies of
the Dutch and Flemish painters, in three volumes, are a
family of rare beauty. 1

The relation of engraving to painting is often dis-
cussed ; but nobody has treated it with more knowledge
or sentiment than the consummate engraver Longhi, in
his interesting work "La Calcografia." 2 Dwelling on
the general aid it renders to the lovers of Art, he claims
for it greater merit in "publishing and immortalizing
the portraits and actions of eminent men as an example
to the present and future generations," and, "better than
any other art, serving as a vehicle for the most extended
and remote propagation of a deserved celebrity." 8 Even
great monuments in porphyry and bronze are less dura-
ble than these light and fragile prints, subject to all the
chances of wind, water, and fire, but prevailing by their
numbers where hardness and tenacity succumb. In
other words, it is with engravings as with books ; nor is
this the only resemblance between them. According to
Longhi, an engraving is not a copy or an imitation, as

1 De Groote Schouburgh der Nederlantsche Konstschilders en Schilder-
essen. Gravenhage, 1753.

8 La Calcografia propriamente detta, ossia L'Arte d'incidere in Rime coll'
Acqua-forte, col Bulino e colla Punta: Ragionamenti letti nelle adunanze
dell' I. R. Istituto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arte del Regno Lombardo-Veneto.
Da Giuseppe Longhi. Vol. I. Concernente la Teorica dell' Arte. Milano,
1830. The death of the author the following year prevented the comple-
tion of his work ; but in 1837 a supplementary volume on the Practice of
the Art, by Carl Earth, appeared in connection with a translation by him of
Longhi's volume, under the title, Die Kupferstecherei oder die Kunst in
Kupfer zu stechen und zu dtzen. (No translation has been made into French
or English.) This rare volume is in the Congressional Library, among the
books which belonged originally to Hon. George P. Marsh, our excellent
and most scholarly Minister in Italy. I asked for it in vain at the Paris
Cabinet of Engravings, and also at the Imperial Library.

La Calcografia, p. 31.

180 THE BEST PORTRAITS IN ENGRAVING.

is sometimes insisted, but a translation. 1 The engraver
translates into another language, where light and shade
supply the place of colors. The duplication of a book
in the same language is a copy, and so is the duplication
of a picture in the same material. Evidently an engrav-
ing is not a copy; it does not reproduce the original pic-
ture, except in drawing and expression : nor is it a mere
imitation; but, as Bryant's Homer and Longfellow's
Dante are presentations of the great originals in another
language, so is the engraving a presentation of painting
in another material, which is like another language.

Thus does the engraver vindicate his art. But no-
body can examine a choice print without feeling that it
has a merit of its own, different from any picture, and
inferior only to a good picture. A work of Eaphael,
or any of the great masters, is better in an engraving
of Longhi or Morghen than in any ordinary copy, and
would probably cost more in the market. A good en-
graving is an undoubted work of Art ; but this cannot
be said of many pictures, which, like Peter Pindar's
razors, seem made only to sell.

Much that belongs to the painter belongs also to the
engraver, who must have the same knowledge of con-
tours, the same power of expression, the same sense of
beauty, and the same ability in drawing with sureness
of sight, as if, according to Michel Angelo, he had " a
pair of compasses in his eyes." These qualities in a
high degree make the artist, whether painter or en-
graver, naturally excel in portraits. But choice por-
traits are less numerous in engraving than in paint-
ing, for the reason that painting does not always find a
successful translator.

1 La Calcografia, pp. 8-13.

THE BEST PORTRAITS IN ENGRAVING. 181

The earliest engraved portraits which attract atten-
tion are by Albert Diirer, who engraved his own work,
translating himself. His eminence as painter was con-
tinued as engraver. Here he surpassed his predecessors,
Martin Schoen in Germany, and Mantegna in Italy,
so that Longhi does not hesitate to say that "he was
the first who carried this art from infancy, in which he
found it, to a condition not far from flourishing adoles-
cence." 1 But while recognizing his great place in the
history of engraving, it is impossible not to see that he
is often hard and constrained, if not unfinished. His
portrait of Erasmus is justly famous, and is conspicuous
among the prints exhibited in the British Museum. It
is dated 1526, two years before the death of Diirer, and
has helped to extend the fame of the universal scholar
and approved man of letters, who in his own age filled
a sphere not unlike that of Voltaire in a later century.
There is another portrait of Erasmus by Holbein, often
repeated ; so that two great artists have contributed to
his renown. That by Diirer is admired. The general
fineness of touch, with the accessories of books and
flowers, shows the care in its execution ; but it wants
expression, and the hands are far from graceful.

Another most interesting portrait by Diirer, executed
in the same year with the Erasmus, is Philip Melanch-
thon, the Saint John of the Eeformation, sometimes called
" The Teacher of Germany," Preceptor Germanice. Lu-
ther, while speaking of himself as rough, boisterous,
stormy, and altogether warlike, says, " But Master Phil-
ippus moves gently and quietly along, ploughs and
plants, sows and waters with pleasure, according as God

1 La Calcografia, p. 71.

182 THE BEST PORTRAITS IN ENGRAVING.

hath given him His gifts richly." 1 At the date of
the print he was twenty-nine years of age, and the
countenance shows the mild reformer.

Agostino Caracci, of the Bolognese family, memora-
ble in Art, added to considerable success as painter
undoubted triumphs as engraver. His prints are nu-
merous, and many are regarded with favor ; but in the
long list not one is so sure of that longevity allotted to
Art as his portrait of Titian, which bears date 1587,
eleven years after the death of the latter. Over it is
the inscription, " Titiani Vecellii Pictoris celeberrimi ac
famosissimi vera effigies" to which is added beneath,
" Cujus nomen orbis continere non valet." Although found-
ed on originals by Titian himself, it was probably de-
signed by the remarkable engraver. It is very like, and
yet unlike, the familiar portrait of which we have a
recent engraving by Mandel, from a repetition in the
Gallery of Berlin. Looking at it, we are reminded of
the terms by which Vasari described the great painter :
" Giudizioso, bello e stupendo." 2 Such a head, with such
visible power, justifies these words, or at least makes
us believe them entirely applicable. It is broad, bold,
strong, and instinct with life.

This print, like the Erasmus of Diirer, is among those
selected for exhibition at the British Museum ; and it

" Ich bin dazu geboren, dass ich mit den Rotten und Teufeln muss krie-
gen und zu Felde liegen ; darum meine Biicher viel stiirmisch und krieger-
isch sind. Ich muss die Klb'tze und Stamme ausreuten, Dornen und Heck-
en wegbauen, die Platzen ausfiillen, nnd bin der grobe Waldrechter, der
Bahn brechen und zurichten muss. Aber M. Philipps fahret sauberlicli und
stille daher, bauet und pflanzet, saet und begeusst, mit Lust, nachdem
Gott ihm hat gegeben seine Gaben reichlich. " Vorrede auf Philippi
Melanchthmiis Ausltyung der Epistd an die. Colosser Samtlich* Schriften,
( Halle, 1740-53,) 1 Theil, coll. 199-200.
Vite, (Firenze, 1857,) Vol. XIII. p. 39.

THE BEST PORTRAITS IN ENGRAVING. 183

deserves the honor. Though only paper with black
lines, it is, by the genius of the artist, as good as a pic-
ture. In all engraving nothing is better.

Contemporary with Caracci was Heinrich Goltzius,
at Haarlem, excellent as painter, but, like the Italian,
preeminent as engraver. His prints show mastery of
the art, making something like an epoch in its history.
His unwearied skill in the use of the burin appears in a
tradition gathered by Longhi from Wille, that, having
commenced a line, he carried it to the end without once
stopping, while the long and bright threads of copper
turned up were brushed aside by his flowing beard,
which at the end of a day's labor so shone in the light
of the candles, that his companions nicknamed him
The Man with the Golden Beard. 1 There are prints
by him which shine more than his beard. Among his
masterpieces is the portrait of his instructor, Dirk
Coornhert, engraver, poet, musician, and vindicator of
his country, and author of the National air, "William
of Nassau," whose passion for Liberty did not prevent
him from giving to the world translations of Cicero's
"Offices" and Seneca's treatise on Beneficence. But
the portrait of the engraver himself, as large as life, is
one of the most important in the art. Among the nu-
merous prints by Goltzius, these two will always be
conspicuous.

In Holland Goltzius had eminent successors. Among
these were Paulus Pontius, designer and engraver, whose
portrait of Kubens is of great life and beauty, and Rem-
brandt, who was not less masterly in engraving than in
painting, as appears sufficiently in his portraits of the
Burgomaster Six, the two Coppenols, the Advocate

1 La Calcografia, pp. 99-100, note.

184 THE BEST POETKAITS IN ENGRAVING.

Tolling and the goldsmith Lutma, all showing singular
facility and originality. Contemporary with Rembrandt
was Cornelis de Visscher, also designer and engraver,
whose portraits were unsurpassed in boldness and pic-
turesque effect At least one authority has accorded to
this artist the palm of engraving, hailing him as " Cory-
pheeus of the Art." : Among his successful portraits is
that of a Cat ; but all yield to what are known as The
Great Beards, being the portraits of Willem de Ryck, an
ophthalmist at Amsterdam, and Gellius de Bouma, the
Zutphen ecclesiastic. The latter is especially famous.
In harmony with the beard is the heavy face, seventy-
seven years old, showing the fulness of long-continued
potations, and hands like the face, original and power-
ful, if not beautiful.

In contrast with Visscher was his countryman Van
Dyck, who painted portraits with constant beauty, and
carried into etching the same Virgilian taste and skill
His aquafortis was not less gentle than his pencil.
Among his etched portraits I would select that of Sny-
ders, the animal-painter, as supremely beautiful. M.
Renouvier, in his learned and elaborate work, "Des
Types et des Manieres des Maitres Graveurs," though
usually moderate in praise, speaks of these sketches
as possessing "a boldness and a delicacy which charm,
being taken at the height of the genius of the painter
who best knew how to idealize portrait painting." 2

Such are illustrative instances from Germany, Italy,
and Holland As yet, power rather than beauty pre-

" Se cieca fede prestarsi dovesse alle decisioni dell' Enciclopedia me-
todica, noi dovremmo ammirare in Cornelio Wisscher il corifeo dell' arte
Ttostra, dicendo essa, che gli artisti s' accordano in aggindicargli la palma
delP incisione." La Calcografia, p. 144.
XVI et XVII* Siecles, p. 122.

THE BEST POBTKA1TS IN ENGRAVING. 185

sided, unless in the etchings of Van Dyck. But the
reign of Louis the Fourteenth was beginning to assert a
supremacy in engraving as in literature. The great
school of French engravers which appeared at this time
brought the art to a splendid perfection, which many
think has not been equalled since; so that Masson,
Nanteuil, Edelinck, and Drevet may claim fellowship
in genius with their immortal contemporaries, Corneille,
Eacine, La Fontaine, and Moliere.

The school was opened by Claude Mellan, more
known as engraver than painter, and also author of most
of the designs he engraved. His life, beginning with
the sixteenth century, was protracted to nearly ninety
years, not without signal honor ; for his name appears
among the " Illustrious Men " of France, in the beauti-
ful volumes of Perrault, which is also a homage to the
art he practised. One of his works, for a long time
much admired, was described by this author:

"It is a head of Christ, designed and shaded with his
crown of thorns, and the blood that trickles on all sides, by
one single stroke, which, beginning at the tip of the nose,
and continuing always in a curve, forms very exactly all that
is represented in the plate, merely by the different thickness
of this stroke, which, according as it is more or less broad,
makes the eyes, nose, mouth, cheeks, hair, blood, and thorns ;
the whole so well represented, and with such expression of
pain and affliction, that nothing is more sad or more touch-
ing." 1

This print is known as The Sudarium of Saint Veron-
ica. Longhi records that it was thought at the time

1 Lea Homines Elustres, Tom. II. p. 97. The excellent copy of this
work in the Congressional Library belonged to Mr. Marsh. The prints
are early impressions.

186 THE BEST PORTRAITS IN ENGRAVING.

"inimitable," and was "praised to the skies," adding,
" But people think differently now." 1 At best it is a
curiosity among portraits. A traveller reported some
time ago that it was the sole print on the walls of the
room occupied by the Director of the Imperial Cabinet
of Engravings at St. Petersburg.

Morin was a contemporary of Mellan, and less fa-
mous at the time. His style of engraving was peculiar,
being a mixture of strokes and dots, but so harmonized
as to produce a pleasing effect. One of the best en-
graved portraits in the history of the art is his Cardinal
Bentivoglio ; but here he translated Van Dyck, whose
picture is among his best. A fine impression of this
print is a choice possession.

Among French masters Antoine Masson is conspicu-
ous for brilliant hardihood of style, which, though fail-
ing in taste, is powerful in effect. Metal, armor, velvet,
feather, seem as if painted. He is also most successful
in the treatment of hair. His immense skill made him
welcome difficulties, as if to show his ability in over-
coming them. His print of Henri de Lorraine, Comte
d'Harcourt, known as Cadet d. la Perk, from the pearl in
the ear, with the date 1667, is often placed at the head
of engraved portraits, although not particularly pleasing
or interesting. The vigorous countenance is aided by
the gleam and sheen of the various substances entering
into the costume. Less powerful, but having a charm
of its own, is that of Brisacier, known as The Gray-
Haired Man, engraved in 1664. The remarkable rep-
resentation of hair in this print has been a model for
artists, especially for Longhi, who recounts that he cop-
ied it in his head of Washington. 2 Somewhat similar

1 La Calcografia, p. 116.
1 Ibid., p. 165, note.

THE BEST PORTRAITS IN ENGRAVING. 187

is the head of Charrier, the Criminal Judge at Lyons.
Though inferior in hair, it surpasses the other in ex-
pression.

Nanteuil was an artist of different character, being
to Masson as Van Dyck to Visscher, with less of vigor
than beauty. His original genius was refined by classi-
cal studies and quickened by diligence. Though dying
at the age of forty-eight, he had executed as many as
two hundred and eighty plates, nearly all portraits. The
favor he enjoyed during life has not diminished with
time. His works illustrate the reign of Louis the Four-
teenth, and are still admired. Among these are por-
traits of the King, Anne of Austria, Johan Baptist
van Steenberghen, called The Advocate of Holland, a
Heavy Dutchman, Francois de la Mothe-Le-Vayer, a
fine and delicate work, Turenne, Colbert, Lamoignon,
the poet Loret, Maridat de Serriere, Louise-Marie de
Gonzague, Louis Hesselin, Christina of Sweden, all
masterpieces ; but above these is the Pomponne de Bel-
lievre, foremost among his masterpieces, and a chief
masterpiece of Art, being, in the judgment of more than
one connoisseur, the most beautiful engraved portrait
that exists. That excellent authority Dr. Thies, who
knew engraving more thoroughly and sympathetically
than any person I remember in our country, said, in a
letter to myself, as long ago as March, 1858,

"When I call Nanteuil's Pomponne the handsomest en-
graved portrait, I express a conviction to which I came when
I studied all the remarkable engraved portraits at the royal
cabinet of engravings in Dresden, and at the large and exqui-
site collection there of the late King of Saxony, and in which
I was confirmed, or perhaps to which I was led, by the direc-
tor of the two establishments, the late Professor FrenzeL"

188 THE BEST PORTRAITS IN ENGRAVING.

And after describing this head, the learned connois-
seur proceeds :

" There is an air of refinement ( Vornehmheit) round the
mouth and nose as in no other engraving. Color and life
shine through the skin, and the lips appear red."

It is bold, perhaps, thus to exalt a single portrait, giv-
ing to it the palm of Venus ; nor do I know that it is
entirely proper to classify portraits according to beauty.
In disputing about beauty, we are too often lost in the
variety of individual tastes ; and yet each person knows
when he is touched. In proportion as multitudes are
touched, there must be merit. As in music a simple
heart-melody is often more effective than any triumph
over difficulties or bravura of manner, so in engraving,
the sense of the beautiful may prevail over all else;
and this is the case with the Pomponne, although there
are portraits by others showing higher art.

No doubt there have been as handsome men, whose
portraits were engraved, but not so well. I know not if
Pomponne was what would be called a handsome man,
although his air is noble and his countenance bright ;
but among portraits more boldly, delicately, or elabo-
rately engraved, there are very few to contest the palm
of beauty. 1

And who is this handsome man to whom the engraver
has given a lease of fame ? Son, nephew, and grandson

1 Something in this success is doubtless due to Le Brun, whom Nanteuil
translated, especially as an earlier portrait of Pomponne by him is little
regarded. But it is the engraver, and not the painter, that is praised,
thus showing the part which his art may perform.

There is much in this portrait, especially in the eyes, to suggest the
late Sir Frederick Bruce, British Minister at Washington, who, when a
youth in the diplomatic suite of Lord Ashburton, was called by Mr.
Choate "the Corinthian part of the British Legation."

THE BEST PORTRAITS IN ENGRAVING. 189

of high dignitaries in Church and State, with two
grandfathers Chancellors of France, two uncles Arch-
bishops, his father President of the Parliament of Paris
and Councillor of State, himself at the head of the
magistracy of France, First President of Parliament,
according to an inscription on the engraving, Senatus
Galliarum Princeps, Ambassador to Italy, Holland, and
England, charged in the last-named country by Cardi-
nal Mazarin with the impossible duty of making peace
between the Long Parliament and Charles the First,
and at his death great benefactor of the General Hos-
pital of Paris, bestowing upon it riches and the very
bed on which he died. Such is the simple catalogue ;
and yet it is all forgotten.

A Funeral Panegyric pronounced at his death, now
before me in the original pamphlet of the time, 1 testifies
to more than family or office. In himself he was much,
and not of those who, according to the saying of Saint
Bernard, " give out smoke rather than light." 2 " Pure
glory and innocent riches " 8 were his ; and he was the
more precious in the sight of all good men, that he
showed himself incorruptible, and not to be bought at
any price. It were easy for him to have turned a del-
uge of wealth into his house ; but he knew that gifts
insensibly entangle, that the specious pretext of grat-
itude is the snare in which the greatest souls allow

1 Panegyrique Funebre de Messire Pomponne de Bellievre,Preinier Presi-
dent au Parlement. Prononce k V Hostel Dieu de Paris le 17 Avril 1657,
au Service solennel fait par 1'ordre de Messieurs les Administrateure. Par
un Chanoine Regulier de la Congregation de France. A Paris, M. DC.
LVII. The Dedication shows this to have been the work of F. L. Alemant.

* " Jettent plutost de la fumee que de la lumiere " : "magis de sublime
fumantera quam flammantem." Prcefat. in vit. S. Mdlach.

8 An application by the preacher, of the first clause of his text : " Gloria
et divitiae in domo ejus, et justitia ejus ma.net in sceculum saecvli" Ps. cxi.
3, Vulg.

190 THE BEST PORTRAITS IN ENGRAVING.

themselves to be caught, that a man covered with fa-
vors has difficulty in setting himself against injustice in
all its forms, and that a magistrate divided between a
sense of obligations received and the care of the public
interest, which he ought always to promote, is a paralyt-
ic magistrate, a magistrate deprived of a moiety of him-
self. So spoke the preacher, while he portrayed a char-
ity tender and effective for the wretched, a vehemence
just and inflexible toward the dishonest and wicked,
and a sweetness noble and beneficent for all ; dwelling
also on his countenance, which had nothing of that se-
vere and sour austerity that renders justice to the good
only as if with regret, and to the guilty only in anger ;
then on his pleasant and gracious address, his intellect-
ual and charming conversation, his ready and judicious
replies, his agreeable and intelligible silence, even his
refusals being well received and obliging, while, amidst
all the pomp and splendor accompanying him, there
shone in his eyes a certain air of sweetness and majesty,
which secured for him, and for justice itself, love as
well as respect. His benefactions were constant. Not
content with merely giving, he gave with a beautiful
manner, still more rare. He could not abide beauty of
intelligence without goodness of soul ; and he preferred
always the poor, having for them not only compassion,
but a sort of reverence. He knew that the way to take
the poison from riches was to let the poor taste of
them. The sentiment of Christian charity for the poor,
who were to him in the place of children, was his last
thought, as witness especially the General Hospital
endowed by him, and represented by the preacher as
the greatest and most illustrious work ever undertaken
by charity the most heroic.

THE BEST PORTRAITS IN ENGRAVING. 191

Thus lived and died the splendid Pomponne de Belli-
evre, with no other children than his works. Celebrated
at the time by a Funeral Panegyric now forgotten, and
placed among the Illustrious Men of France in a work
remembered only for its engraved portraits, 1 his famous
life shrinks in the voluminous " Biographic Universelle "
of Michaud to the sixth part of a single page, and in the
later " Biographic Ge'ne'rale" of Didot disappears entirely.
History forgets to mention him. But the lofty magistrate,
ambassador, and benefactor, founder of a great hospital,
cannot be entirely lost from sight so long as his portrait
by Nanteuil holds a place in Art.

Younger than Nanteuil by ten years, Gerard Edelinck
excelled him in genuine mastery. Born at Antwerp, he
became French by adoption, occupying apartments in the
Gobelins, and enjoying a pension from Louis the Four-
teenth. Longhi says that he is "the engraver whose
works, not only in my opinion, but in that of the best
judges, deserve the first place among exemplars of the
art"; and he attributes to him, "in a high degree, de-
sign, chiaroscuro, aerial perspective, local tints, softness,
lightness, variety, in short everything which can form
the most exact representation of the true and beautiful
without the aid of color." Others may have surpassed
him in particular things, but, according to the Italian
teacher, "he still remains by common consent the prince
of engraving." a Another critic calls him " king."

It requires no remarkable knowledge to recognize
his great merits. Evidently he is a master, exercising
sway with absolute art, and without attempt to bribe

1 Lea Homm.es Tllustres, par Perrault, cited ante, p. 337. See, Tom. IL
p. 53, a memoir of Bellievre, with a portrait by Edelinck.
La Calcografia, pp. 172, 177.

192 THE BEST PORTRAITS IN ENGRAVING.

the eye by special effects of light, as on metal or satin.
Among his conspicuous productions is The Tent of Da-
rius, a large engraving on two sheets, after Le Brun,
where the family of the Persian monarch prostrate
themselves before Alexander, who approaches with He-
phsBstion. There is also a Holy Family, after Kaphael,
and The Battle of the Standard, after Leonardo da Vinci.
But these are less interesting than his numerous por-
traits, among which that of Philippe de Champagne is
the chief masterpiece; and there are others of signal
merit, including especially Madame Helyot, or La belle
Religieuse, a beautiful French coquette praying before
a crucifix; Martin van den Bogaert (Des Jardins,) the
sculptor ; Frederic Leonard, Printer to the King ; Mou-
ton, the Lute-Player ; Nathanael Dilgerus, with a ven-
erable beard white with age ; Jules Hardouiii Mansart,
the architect ; also a portrait of Pomponne de Bellievre,
which will be found among the prints of Perrault's
"Illustrious Men."

The Philippe de Champagne is the head of that emi-
nent French artist after a painting by himself, and it
contests the palm with the Pomponne. Mr. Marsh, who
is an authority, prefers it. Dr. Thies, who places the
latter first in beauty, is constrained to allow that the
other is " superior as a work of the graver," being exe-
cuted with all the resources of the art in its chastest
form. The enthusiasm of Longhi finds expression in
unusual praise:

" The work which goes most to my blood, and of which
Edelinck himself was justly proud, is the portrait of Cham-
pagne. I shall die before I cease often to contemplate it
with ever new wonder. Here is seen how he was equally
great as designer and engraver." 1

l La Calcografia, p. 176.

THE BEST PORTRAITS IN ENGRAVING. 193

And he then dwells on various details, the bones,
the skin, the flesh, the eyes living and seeing, the moist-
ened lips, the chin covered with a beard unshaven for
many days, and the hair in all its forms.

Between the rival portraits by Nanteuil and Edelinck
it is unnecessary to decide. Each is beautiful. In
looking at them we recognize anew the transient honors
of public service. The present fame of Champagne sur-
passes that of Pomponne. The artist outlives the mag-
istrate. But does not the poet tell us that " the artist
never dies " ?

As Edelinck passed from the scene the family of
Drevet appeared, especially the son, Pierre Imbert
Drevet, born in 1697, who developed a rare excellence,
improving even upon the technics of his predecessor,
and gilding his refined gold. The son was born en-
graver, for at the age of thirteen he produced an engrav-
ing of exceeding merit. Like Masson he manifested a
singular skill in rendering different substances by the
effect of light, and at the same time gave to flesh a soft-
ness and transparency which remain unsurpassed. To
these he added great richness in picturing costumes and
drapery, especially in lace.

He was eminently a portrait engraver, which I must
insist is the highest form of the art, as the human face
is the most important object for its exercise. Less clear
and simple than Nanteuil, and less severe than Edelinck,
he gave to the face individuality of character, and made
his works conspicuous in Art. If there was excess in
the accessories, it was before the age of Sartor Resartus,
and he only followed the prevailing style in the popular
paintings of Hyacinthe Rigaud. Art in all its forms
had become florid, if not meretricious ; and Drevet was
a representative of his age.

VOL. XIX. 13

194 THE BEST PORTRAITS IN ENGRAVING.

Among his works are important masterpieces. I
name only Bossuet, the famed Eagle of Meaux ; Samuel
Bernard, the rich Councillor of State ; Fe'nelon, the per-
suasive teacher and writer; Cardinal Dubois, the unprin-
cipled minister and favorite of the Regent of France;
and Adrienne Le Couvreur, the beautiful and unfortu-
nate actress, linked in love with Marshal Saxe. The
portrait of Bossuet has everything to attract and charm.
There stands the powerful defender of the Catholic
Church, master of French style, and most renowned pul-
pit orator of France, in episcopal robes, with abundant
lace, which is the perpetual envy of the fair who look at
this transcendent effort. The ermine of Dubois is ex-
quisite ; but the general effect of this portrait does not
compare vith the Bossuet, next to, which, in fascination,
I put the Adrienne. At her death the actress could not
be buried in consecrated ground ; but through Art she
has the perpetual companionship of the greatest bishop
of France.

With the younger Drevet closed the classical period
of portraits in engraving, as just before had closed the
Augustan age of French literature. Louis the Four-
teenth decreed engraving a Fine Art, and established
an Academy for its cultivation. Pride and ostentation
in the king and the great aristocracy created a demand,
which the genius of the age supplied. The heights that
had been reached could not be maintained. There were
eminent engravers still, but the zenith had been passed.
Balechou, who belonged to the reign of Louis the Fif-
teenth, and Beauvarlet, whose life was protracted beyond
the Reign of Terror, both produced portraits of merit.
The former is noted for a certain clearness and brill-

THE BEST PORTRAITS IN ENGRAVING. 195

iancy, but with a hardness as of brass or marble, and
without entire accuracy of design ; the latter has much
softness of manner. They were the best artists of
France at the time, but none of their portraits are fa-
mous. To these may be added another contemporary
artist, without predecessor or successor, fitienne Fic-
quet, unduly disparaged in one of the dictionaries as " a
reputable French engraver," but undoubtedly remarka-
ble for small portraits, not unlike miniatures, of exqui-
site finish. Among these the rarest and most admired
are La Fontaine, Madame de Maintenon, Eubens, and
Van Dyck.

Two other engravers belong to this intermediate pe-
riod, although not French in origin, Georg Friedrich
Schmidt, born at Berlin, 1712, and Johann Georg Wille,
born near the small town of Konigsberg, in the Grand
Duchy of Hesse-Darmstadt, 1717, but, attracted to Paris,
they became the greatest engravers of the time. Their
work is French, and they are the natural development
of that classical school

Schmidt was the son of a poor weaver, and lost six
precious years as a soldier in the artillery at Berlin.
Owing to the smallness of his size he was at length dis-
missed, when he surrendered to a natural talent for en-
graving. Arriving at Strasburg, on his way to Paris, he
fell in with Wille, who joined him in his journey, and
eventually in his studies. The productions of Schmidt
show ability, originality, and variety, rather than taste.
His numerous portraits are excellent, being free and
life-like, while the accessories of embroidery and dra-
pery are rendered with effect. As an etcher he ranks
next after Rembrandt. Of his portraits executed with
the graver, that of the Empress Elizabeth of Eussia is

196 THE BEST PORTRAITS IN ENGRAVING.

usually called the most important, perhaps on account of
the imperial theme, and next, those of Count Rasou-
mowsky, Count Esterhazy, and Mounsey, Court Physi-
cian, which he engraved while in St. Petersburg, whither
he was called by the Empress, founding there the Acad-
emy of Engraving. But his real masterpieces are un-
questionably Pierre Mignard and La Tour, French paint-
ers, the latter represented laughing.

"Wille lived to old age, not dying till 1808. During
this long life he was active in the art to which he in-
clined naturally. His mastery of the graver was perfect,
lending itself especially to the representation of satin
and metal, although less happy with flesh. His Satin
Gown, or L' Instruction Paternelle, after Terburg, and Les
Musiciens Ambulants, after Dietrich, are always admired.
Nothing of the kind in engraving is finer. His style
was adapted to pictures of the Dutch school, and to por-
traits with rich surroundings. Of the latter the princi-
pal are Comte de Saint-Florentin, Marquis Poisson de
Marigny, Jean de Boullongne, and Cardinal de Tencin.

Especially eminent was Wille as a teacher. Under his
influence the art assumed new life, so that he became
father of the modern school. His scholars spread every-
where, and among them are acknowledged masters. He
was teacher of Bervic, whose portrait of Louis the Six-
teenth in his coronation robes is of a high order, him-
self teacher of the Italian Toschi, who, after an eminent
career, died as late as 1858 ; also teacher of P. A. Tar-
dieu, himself teacher of the brilliant Desnoyers, whose
portrait of the Emperor Napoleon in his coronation robes
is the fit complement to that of Louis the Sixteenth ;
also teacher of the German, J. G. von Miiller, himself

THE BEST PORTRAITS IN ENGRAVING. 197

father and teacher of J. F. W. von Muller, engraver of
the Sistine Madonna, in a plate whose great fame is not
above its merit ; also teacher of the Italian Vangelisti,
himself teacher of the unsurpassed Longhi, in whose
school were Anderloni and Jesi. Thus not only by his
works, but by his famous scholars, did the humble gun-
smith gain sway in Art.

Among portraits of this school deserving especial
mention is that of King Jerome of Westphalia, brother
of Napoleon, by the two Miillers above named, where
the genius of the artists is most conspicuous, although
the subject contributes little. As in the case of the Pal-
ace of the Sun, described by Ovid, " materiam super-
abat opus." l This work is a beautiful example of skill
in representation of fur and lace, not yielding even to
Drevet.

Longhi was a universal master, and his portraits are
only part of his work. That of Washington, which is
rare, is evidently founded on Stuart's painting, but after
a design of his own, which is now in the possession of
the Swiss Consul at Venice. The artist particularizes
the hair, as being modelled after the French master
Masson. 2 The portraits of Michel Angelo and Dandolo,
the venerable Doge of Venice, are admired ; so also is
the Napoleon as King of Italy, with the iron crown and
finest lace. But his chief portrait is that of Eugene
Beauharnais, Viceroy of Italy, full length, remarkable
for the plume in the cap, which is finished with sur-
passing skilL

Contemporary with Longhi was another Italian en-
graver of widely extended fame, who was not the pro-

1 Metam. Lib. II. 5. * La Calcografia, pp. 165, 418.

198 THE BEST PORTRAITS IN ENGRAVING.

duct of the French school, Raffaello Morghen, born at
Portici in 1761. His works have enjoyed a popularity
beyond those of other masters, partly from the interest of
their subjects, and partly from their soft and captivating
style, although they do not possess the graceful power
of Nanteuil and Edelinck, and are without variety. He
was scholar and son-in-law of Volpato, of Eome, him-
self scholar of Wagner, of Venice, whose homely round
faces were not high models in Art. The Aurora of
Guido and the Last Supper of Leonardo da Yinci stand
high in engraving, especially the latter, which occupied
Morghen three years. Of his two hundred and fifty-
four works no less than eighty-five are portraits, among
which are the Italian poets, Dante, Petrarc, Ariosto,
Tasso, also Boccaccio, and a head called Eaphael, but
supposed to be that of Bindo Altoviti, the great paint-
er's friend, 1 and especially the Duke of Moncada on
horseback, after Van Dyck, which has received warm
praise. But none of his portraits is calculated to give
greater pleasure than that of Leonardo da Vinci, which
may vie in beauty even with the famous Pomponne.
Here is the beauty of years and of serene intelligence.
Looking at that tranquil countenance, it is easy to im-
agine the large and various capacities which made him
not only painter, but sculptor, architect, musician, poet,
discoverer, philosopher, even predecessor of Galileo and
Bacon. Such a character deserves the immortality of
Art. Happily, an old Venetian engraving, reproduced
in our day, 2 enables us to see this same countenance at
an earlier period of life with sparkle in the eye.

1 See Quatremere De Qtuncy, Histoire de la Vie et des Ouvrages de
Raphael, (Paris, 1833,) pp. 193-97.

2 Les Arts au Moyen Age et a 1'Epoque de la Renaissance, par Paul La-
croix, ( Paris, 1869,) p. 298.

THE BEST PORTRAITS IN ENGRAVING. 199

Raffaello Morghen left no scholars who have followed
him in portraits ; but his own works are still regarded,
and a monument in Santa Croce, the "Westminster Ab-
bey of Florence, places him among the mighty dead of
Italy.

Thus far nothing has been said of English engravers.
Here, as in Art generally, England seems removed from
the rest of the world, " Et penitus toto divisos orbe
Britannos." 1 But though beyond the sphere of Conti-
nental Art, the island of Shakespeare was not inhospit-
able to some of its representatives. Van Dyck, Eubens,
Sir Peter Lely, and Sir Godfrey Kneller, all Dutch art-
ists, painted the portraits of Englishmen, and engraving
was first illustrated by foreigners. Jacob Houbraken,
another Dutch artist, born in 1698, was employed to
execute portraits for Birch's " Heads of Illustrious Per-
sons of Great Britain," published at London in 1743 ;
and in these works may be seen the aesthetic taste in-
herited from his father, (the biographer of the Dutch
artists, 2 ) and improved by study of the French masters.
Although without great force or originality of manner,
many of these have positive beauty. I would name es-
pecially the Sir Walter Raleigh and John Dryden.

Different in style was Bartolozzi, the Italian, who
made his home in England fgr forty years, ending in
1805, when he removed to Lisbon. The considerable
genius* which he possessed was spoiled by haste in exe-
cution, superseding that care which is an essential con-
dition of Art Hence sameness in his work, and indif-

1 Virgil, Eel. I. 67.

* Arnold Houbraken, De Groote Schouburgh der Nederlantsche Konst-
schildera en Schilderessen. Cited, ante, p. 331. ,

200

ference to the picture he copied. Longhi speaks of him
as " most unfaithful to his archetypes," and, " whatever
the originals, being always BartolozzL" 1 Among his
portraits of especial interest are several old wigs, as
Mansfield and Thurlow ; also the Death of Chatham,
after the picture of Copley in the Vernon Gallery. But
his prettiest piece undoubtedly is Mary, Queen of Scots,
ivith her little Son, James the First, after what Mrs.
Jameson calls " the lovely picture by Zuccaro at Chis-
wick." 3 In the same style are his vignettes, which are
of acknowledged beauty.

Meanwhile a Scotchman, honorable in Art, comes up-
on the scene, Sir Robert Strange, born in the distant
Orkneys in 1721, who abandoned the law for engrav-
ing. As a youthful Jacobite he joined the Pretender
in 1745, sharing the disaster of Culloden, and owing
his safety from pursuers to a young lady dressed in
the ample costume of the period, whom he afterwards
married in gratitude, and they were both happy. He
has a style of his own, rich, soft, and especially charm-
ing in the tints of flesh, making him a natural trans-
lator of Titian. His most celebrated engravings are
doubtless the Venus and the Danae after the great Ve-
netian colorist ; but the Cleopatra, though less famous,
is not inferior in merit. His acknowledged masterpiece
is the Madonna of St. Jerome, called " The Day" after
the picture by Correggio in the Gallery of Parma ; but
his portraits after Van Dyck are not less fine, while they
are more interesting, as Charles the First, with a large
hat, by the side of his horse, which the Marquis of Harn-

1 La Calcografia, p. 209.

8 Visits and Sketches at Home and Abroad, (London. 1834,) VoL IL
p. 188, note.

THE BEST PORTRAITS IN ENGRAVING. 201

ilton is holding ; and that of the same monarch stand-
ing in his ermine robes ; also the three royal children,
with two King Charles spaniels at their feet ; also Hen-
rietta Maria, the Queen of Charles. That with the er-
mine robes is supposed to have been studied by Eaffa-
ello Morghen, called sometimes an imitator of Strange. 1
To these I would add the rare autograph portrait of the
engraver, being a small head after Greuze, which is sim-
ple and beautiful

One other name will close this catalogue. It is that
of William Sharp, who was born at London in 1746, and
died there in 1824. Though last in order, this engrav-
er may claim kindred with the best. His first essays
were the embellishment of pewter pots, from which he
ascended to the heights of Art, showing a power rarely
equalled. Without any instance of peculiar beauty, his
works are constant in character and expression, with
every possible excellence of execution : face, form, dra-
pery, all are as in Nature. His splendid qualities
appear in the Doctors of the Church, which has taken
its place as the first of English engravings. It is after
the picture of Guido, once belonging to the Houghton
Gallery, which in an evil hour for English taste was-
allowed to enrich the collection of the Hermitage at St.
Petersburg; and I remember well that this engraving
by Sharp was one of the few ornaments in the drawing-
room of Macaulay when I last saw him, shortly before
his lamented death. Next to the Doctors of the Church
is his Lear in the Storm, after the picture by West, now
in the Boston Athenaeum, and his Sortie from Gibraltar,
after the picture by Trumbull, also in the Boston Athe-
naeum. Thus, through at least two of his masterpieces

1 Longhi, La Calcografia, p. 199.

202 THE BEST PORTRAITS IN ENGRAVING.

whose originals are among us, is our country associated
with this great artist.

It is of portraits especially that I write, and here
Sharp is truly eminent. All he did was well done ; but
two are models, that of Mr. Boulton, a strong, well-
developed country gentleman, admirably executed, and
of John Hunter, the eminent surgeon, after the painting
by Sir Joshua Eeynolds, in the London College of Sur-
geons, unquestionably the foremost portrait in English
Art, and the coequal companion of the great portraits in
the past; but here the engraver united his rare gifts
with those of the painter.

In closing these sketches I would have it observed
that this is no attempt to treat of engraving generally,
or of prints in their mass or types. The present subject
is simply Portraits, and I stop now just as we arrive at
contemporary examples, abroad and at home, with the
gentle genius of Mandel beginning to ascend the sky,
and our own engravers appearing on the horizon. There
is also a new and kindred art, infinite in value, where
the Sun himself becomes artist, with works which mark
an epoch.

WASHINGTON, llth Dec., 1871.

NOTE. When Mr. Sumner began the publication of his Works in
1870, he engaged Mr. George Nichols, of Cambridge, to read the proofs
editorially. This Mr. Nichols did, with great care and ability, until
about ten days before his death, which occurred on the 6th of July,
1882. His work of supervision ended on p. 334 of this volume.

EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW PROTECTED BY
NATIONAL STATUTE.

SPEECHES IN THE SENATE, ON HIS SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL
RIGHTS BILL, AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE AMNESTY BILL,
JANUARY 15, 17, 31, FEBRUARY 5, AND MAY 21, 1872.

Brave Theseus, they were MEN like all before,
r And human souls in human frames they bore,
With you to take their parts in earthly feasts,
With you to climb one heaven and sit immortal guests.

STATIUS, Ttiebaid, tr. Kennett, Lib. XI.

I WAS fully convinced, that, whatever difference there is between the
Negro and European in the conformation of the nose and the color of
the skin, there is none in the genuine sympathies and characteristic
feelings of our common nature. MUNGO PARK, Travels in the Inte-
rior Districts of Africa, (London, 1816,) Vol. I. p. 80, Ch. 6.

The word MAN is thought to carry somewhat of dignity in its sound ;
and we commonly make use of this, as the last and the most prevailing
argument against a rude insulter, "I am not a beast, a dog, but I am
a Man as well ao yourself." Since, then, human nature agrees equally
to all persons, and since no one can live a sociable life with another
who does not own and respect him as a Man, it follows, as a command
of the Law of Nature, that every man esteem and treat another as one
who is naturally his equal, or who is a Man as well as he. PUFEN-
DOEF, Law of Nature and Nations, tr. Kennett, Book III., Ch. 2, 1.

Carrying his solicitude still farther, Charlemagne recommended to
the bishops and abbots, that, in their schools, "they should take care
to make no diiference between the sons of serfs and of freemen, so that
they might come and sit on the same benches to study grammar, music,
and arithmetic." GUIZOT, History of France, tr. Black, (London,
1872,) Vol. I. p. 239.

INTRODUCTION.

MAY 13, 1870, Mr. Stunner asked, and by unanimous consent ob-
tained, leave to bring in a bill " Supplementary to an Act entitled 'An
Act to protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and
furnish the means of their vindication,' passed April 9, 1866," which
was read the first and second times by unanimous consent, referred to
the Committee on the Judiciary, and ordered to be printed.

July 7th, only a few days before the close of the session, Mr. Tram-
bull, Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, reported a bundle
of bills, including that above mentioned, adversely, and all, on his mo-
tion, were postponed indefinitely.

January 20, 1871, Mr. Sumner again introduced the same bill, which
was once more referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

February 15th, Mr. Tram bull, from the Committee, again reported
the bill adversely ; but, at the suggestion of Mr. Sumner, it was al-
lowed to go on the Calendar. Owing to the pressure of business in
the latter days of the session, he was not able to have it considered,
and the bill dropped with the session.

At the opening of the next Congress, March 9, 1871, Mr. Sumner
again brought forward the same bill, which was read the first and sec-
ond times, by unanimous consent, and on his motion ordered to lie on
the table and be printed. In making this motion he said that the bill
had been reported adversely twice by the Committee on the Judiciary ;
that, therefore, he did not think it advisable to ask its reference again ;
that nothing more important could be submitted to the Senate, and
that it should be acted on before any adjournment of Congress. In
reply to an inquiry from Mr. Hamlin, of Maine, Mr. Sumner proceeded
to explain the bill, which he insisted was in conformity with the Dec-
laration of Independence, and with the National Constitution, neither
of which knows anything of the word "white." Then, announcing
that he should do what he could to press the bill to a vote, he said :

206 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL EIGHTS BILL.

"Senators may vote it down. They may take that responsibility ; but
I shall take mine, God willing."

At this session a resolution was adopted limiting legislation to cer-
tain enumerated subjects, among which the Supplementary Civil Eights
bill was not named. March 17th, while the resolution was under dis-
cussion, Mr. Sumner warmly protested against it, and insisted that
nothing should be done to prevent the consideration of his bill, which
he explained at length. In reply to the objection that the session was
to be short, and that there was no time, he said : "Make the time,
then ; extend the session ; do not limit it so as to prevent action on a
measure of such vast importance." An amendment moved by Mr.
Sumner to add this bill to the enumerated subjects was rejected. The
session closed without action upon it.

At the opening of the next session, Mr. Sumner renewed his efforts.

December 7, 1871, in presenting a petition from colored citizens of
Albany, he remarked: "It seems to me the Senate cannot do better
than proceed at once to the consideration of the supplementary bill
now on our Calendar, to carry out the prayer of these petitioners " ;
and he wished Congress might be inspired to " make a Christmas pres-
ent to their colored fellow-citkens of the rights secured by that bill."

December 20th, the Senate having under consideration a bill, which
had already passed the House, "for the removal of the legal and politi-
cal disabilities imposed by the third section of the Fourteenth Article
of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States," Mr. Sumner,
insisting upon justice before generosity, moved his Supplementary Civil
Rights Bill as an amendment. A colloquy took place between himself
and Mr. Hill, of Georgia, in which the latter opposed the amendment.

MR. SUMXER. I should like to bring home to the Senator that
nearly one half of the people of Georgia are now excluded from
the equal rights which my amendment proposes to secure ; and
yet I understand that the Senator disregards their condition, seta
aside their desires, and proposes to vote down my proposition.
The Senator assumes that the former Rebels are the only people
of Georgia. Sir, I see the colored race in Georgia. I see that
race once enslaved, for a long time deprived of all rights, and now
under existing usage and practice despoiled of rights which the
Senator himself is in the full enjoyment of.

MR. HILL I never can agree in the proposition that, if

there be a hotel for the entertainment of travellers, and two
classes stop at it, and there is one dining-room for one class and

SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL EIGHTS BILL. 207

one for another, served alike in all respects, with the same accom-
modations, the same attention to the guests, there is anything offen-
sive, or anything that denies the civil rights of one more than the
other. Nor do I hold, that, if you have public schools, and you
give all the advantages of education to one class as you do to an-
other, but keep them separate and apart, there is any denial of a
civil right in that. I also contend, that, even upon the railways
of the country, if cars of equal comfort, convenience, and security
be provided for different' classes of persons, no one has a right
to complain, if it be a regulation of the companies to separate
them

MR. SUMNER. Mr. President, we have a vindication on this
floor of inequality as a principle and as a political rule.

MR. HILL. On which race, I would inquire, does the inequal-
ity to which the Senator refers operate?

MR. SUMNER. On both. Why, the Senator would not allow a
white man in the same car with a colored man.

MR. HILL. Not unless he was invited, perhaps. [Laughter.]

MR. SUMNER. The Senator mistakes a substitute for equality.
Equality is where all are alike. A substitute can never take the
place of equality. It is impossible ; it is absurd. I must remind
the Senator that it is very unjust, it is terribly unjust. We
have received in this Chamber a colored Senator from Mississippi ;
but according to the rule of the Senator from Georgia we shoiild
have put him apart by himself ; he should not have sat with his
brother Senators. Do I understand the Senator as favoring such
a rule?

MR. HILL. No, Sir.

MR. SUMNER. The Senator does not.

MR. HILL. I do not, Sir, for this reason : it is under the insti-
tutions of the country that he becomes entitled by law to his seat
here ; we have no right to deny it to him.

MR. SUMNER. Very well ; and I intend, to the best of my
ability, to see that under the institutions of the country he is

208 SUPPLEMENTAL CIVIL EIGHTS BILL.

equal everywhere. The Senator says he is equal in this Cham-
ber. I say he should be equal in rights everywhere ; and why
not, I ask the Senator from Georgia ?

MR. HILL I am one of those who havt 'believed, that,

when it pleased the Creator of heaven and earth, to make differ-
ent races of men, it was His purpose to keep them distinct and
separate. I think so now

MR. SUMNER. The Senator admits that in the highest council-
chamber there is, and should be, perfect equality before the law ;
but descend into the hotel, on the railroad, within the common
school, and there can be no equality before the law. The Senator
does not complain because all are equal in this Chamber. I should
like to ask him, if he will allow me, whether, in his judgment,
the colored Representatives from Georgia and South Carolina in
the other Chamber ought not on railroads and at hotels to have
like rights with himself ? I ask that precise question.

MR. HILL. I will answer that question in this manner : I my-
self am subject in hotels and upon railroads to the regulations pro-
vided by the hotel proprietors for their guests, and by the railroad
companies for their passengers. I am entitled, and so is the col-
ored man, to all the security and comfort that either presents to
the most favored guest or passenger ; but I maintain that prox-
imity to a colored man does not increase my comfort or security,
nor does proximity to me on his part increase his, and therefore it
is not a denial of any right in either case.

MR. SUMNER. May I ask the Senator if he is excluded from
any right on account of his color 1 The Senator says he is some-
times excluded from something at hotels or on railroads. I ask
whether any exclusion on account of color bears on him ?

MR. HILL. I answer the Senator. I have been excluded from
ladies' cars on railroads. I do not know on what account pre-
cisely ; I do not know whether it was on account of my color ;
but I think it more likely that it was on account of my sex.
[Laughter.]

MR. SUMNER. But the Senator, as I understand, insists that it
is proper on account of color. That is his conclusion.

SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL EIGHTS BILL. 209

MR. HILL. No ; I insist that it is no denial of a right, pro-
vided all the comfort and security be furnished to passengers
alike.

MR. SUMNER. The Senator does not seem to see that any rule
excluding a man on account of color is an indignity, an insult, and
a wrong ; and he makes himself on this floor the representative of
indignity, of insult, and of wrong to the colored race. Why, Sir,
his State has a large colored population, and he denies their
rights.

MR. HILL. If the Senator will allow me, I will say to him
that it will take him and others, if there should be any others who
so believe, a good while to convince the colored people of the State
of Georgia, who know me, that I would deprive them of any right
to which they are entitled, though it were only technical ; but in
matters of pure taste I cannot get away from the idea that I do
them no injustice, if I separate them on some occasions from the
other race

MR. SUMNER. The Senator makes a mistake which has been
made for a generation in this Chamber, confounding what belongs
to society with what belongs to rights. There is no question of
society. The Senator may choose his associates as he pleases.
They may be white or black, or between the two. That is simply
a social question, and nobody would interfere with it. The taste
which the Senator announces he will have free liberty to exercise,
selecting always his companions ; but when it comes to rights,
there the Senator must obey the law, and I insist that by the law
of the land all persons without distinction of color shall be equal
in rights. Show me, therefore, a legal institution, anything cre-
ated or regulated by law, and I show you what must be opened
equally to all without distinction of color. Notoriously, the hotel
is a legal institution, originally established by the Common Law,
subject to minute provisions and regulations ; notoriously, public
conveyances are common carriers subject to a law of their own ;
notoriously, schools are public institutions created and maintained
by law ; and now I simply insist that in the enjoyment of these
institutions there shall be no exclusion on account of color.

MR. HILL. I must confess, Sir, that I cannot see the magni-
VOL. xix. 14

210 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

tucle of this subject. I object to this great Government descend-
in" to the business of regulating the hotels and the common
taverns of this country, and the street railroads, stage-coaches,
and everything of that sort. It looks to me to be a petty
business

MR. SCMNER. I would not have my country descend, but
ascend. It must rise to the heights of the Declaration of Inde-
pendence. Then and there did we pledge ourselves to the great
truth that all men are equal in rights. And now a Senator from
Georgia rises on this floor and denies it. He denies it by a
subtilty. While pretending to admit it, he would overthrow it.
He would adopt a substitute for equality.

MR. HILL. With the permission of the Senator, I will ask
him if this proposition does not involve on the part of this Gov-
ernment an inhibition upon railroad companies of first, second,
and third class cars ?

MR. SCMNER. Not at all. That is simply a matter of price.
My bill is an inhibition upon inequality founded upon color. I
had thought that all those inequalities were buried under the tree
at Appomattox, but the Senator digs them up and brings them
into this Chamber. There never can be an end to this discussion
until all men are assured in equal rights

MR. HILL I do not know, that, among the guests that the

Senator entertains of the colored race, he is visited so often by the
humble as I myself am. I think those who call upon him are
gentlemen of title and of some distinction ; they may be Lieuten-
ant-Governors, members of the two Houses here, members of
State Legislatures, &c. My associations have been more with the
lower strata of the colored people than with the upper.

MR. SUMNER. Mr. President, there is no personal question be-
tween the Senator and myself

MR. HILL. None whatever.

MR. SCMNER. He proclaims his relations with the colored
race. I say nothing of mine ; I leave that to others. But the
Senator still insists upon his dogma of inequality. Senators bave
heard him again and again, how he comes round by a vicious

SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL EIGHTS BILL. 211

circle to the same point, that an equivalent is equality ; and when
I mention the case of Governor Dunn travelling from New
Orleans to Washington on public business, I understand the Sen-
ator to say that on the cars he should enjoy a different treatment
from the Governor.

MR. HILL. No, Sir ; I have distinctly disclaimed that. When
he pays his money, he is entitled to as much comfort and as much
convenience as I am.

MB. SUMNER. Let me ask the Senator whether in this world
personal respect is not an element of comfort. If a person is
treated with indignity, can he be comfortable ?

MR. HILL. I will answer the Senator, that no one can con-
demn more strongly than I do any indignity visited upon a per-
son merely because of color.

MR. SUMNER. But when you exclude persons from the com-
forts of travel simply on account of color, do you not offer them
an indignity ?

MR. HILL. I say it is the fault of the railroad companies, if
they do not provide comforts for all their passengers, and make
them equal where they pay equal fare.

MR. SUMNER. The Senator says it is the fault of the railroad
company. I propose to make it impossible for the railroad com-
pany to offer an indignity to a colored man more than to the Sen-
ator from Georgia.

MR. HILL. Eight there the Senator and I divide upon this

question I confess to having a little penchant for the white

race ; and if I were going on a long journey, and desired a com-
panion, I should prefer to select him from my own race.

MR. SUMNER. The Senator comes round again to his taste. It
is not according to his taste ; and therefore he offers an indignity
to the colored man.

MR. HILL. No, Sir.

MR. SUMNER. It is not according to his taste ; that is alL
How often shall I say that this is no question of taste, it is no

212 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL EIGHTS BILL.

question of society, it is a stern, austere, hard question of rights?
And that is the way that I present it to the Senate.

In old days, when Slavery was arraigned, the constant inquiry of
those who represented this wrong was, "Are you willing to associ-
ate with colored persons ? Will you take these slaves, as equals,
into your families ? " Sir, was there ever a more illogical inquiry ?
What has that to do with the question ? A claim of rights cannot
be encountered by any social point. I may have whom I please
as friend, acquaintance, associate, and so may the Senator ; but I
cannot deny any human being, the humblest, any right of equality.
He must be equal with me before the law, or the promises of the
Declaration of Independence are not yet fulfilled.

And now, Sir, I pledge myself, so long as strength remains in
me, to press this question to a successful end I will not see the
colored race of this Republic treated with indignity on the grounds
assigned by the Senator. I am their defender. The Senator may
deride me, and may represent me as giving too much time to what
he calls a very small question. Sir, no question of human rights
is smalL Every question by which the equal rights of all are
affected is transcendent. It cannot be magnified. But here are
the rights of a whole people, not merely the rights of an individ-
ual, of two or three or four, but the rights of a race, recognized as
citizens, voting, helping to place the Senator here in this Chamber,
and he turns upon them and denies them.

MR. HILL. The Senator is not aware of one fact, .... that
every colored member of the Legislature of my State, even though
some of them had made voluntary pledges to me, voted against my
election to this body. I was not sent here receiving a single vote
from that class of men in the Legislature.

MR. SUMNER. I am afraid that they understood the Senator,
[Laughter. ]

MR. HILL. That may be, Sir. I would not be surprised, if
they had some distrust. [Laughter.]

MR. SUMNER. And now, Mr. President, that we may under-
stand precisely where we are, that the Senate need not be confused
by the question of taste or the question of society presented by
the Senator from Georgia, I desire to have my amendment read.

SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL. 213

The Supplementary Civil Rights Bill was then read at length, as
follows :

SEC. That all citizens of the United States, without distinction of race,
color, or previous condition of servitude, are entitled to the equal and im-
partial enjoyment of any accommodation, advantage, facility, or privilege
furnished by common carriers, whether on land or water ; by inn-keepers;
by licensed owners, managers, or lessees of theatres or other places of pub-
lic amusement; by trustees, commissioners, superintendents, teachers, or
other officers of common schools and other public institutions of learning,
the same being supported or authorized by law ; by trustees or officers of
church organizations, cemetery associations, and benevolent institutions
incorporated by National or State authority : and this right shall not be
denied or abridged on any pretence of race, color, or previous condition
of servitude.

SEC. That any person violating the foregoing provision, or aiding in its
violation, or inciting thereto, shall for every such offence forfeit and pay the
sum of $500 to the person aggrieved thereby, to be recovered in an action
on the case, with full costs and such allowance for counsel fees as the court
shall deem just, and shall also for every such offence be deemed guilty of a
misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not less than $500
nor more than $1,000, and shall be imprisoned not less than thirty days
nor more than one year; and any corporation, association, or individual
holding a charter or license under National or State authority, violating the
aforesaid provision, shall, upon conviction thereof, forfeit such charter or
license; and any person assuming to use or continuing to act under such
charter or license thus forfeited, or aiding in the same, or inciting thereto,
shall, upon conviction thereof, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and
shall be fined not less than $1,000 nor more than $5,000, and shall be
imprisoned not less than three nor more than seven years; and both the
corporate and joint property of such corporation or association, and the
private property of the several individuals composing the same, shall be
held liable for the forfeitures, fines, and penalties incurred by any violation
of the section of this Act.

SEC. That the same jurisdiction and powers are hereby conferred and
the same duties enjoined upon the courts and officers of the United States,
in the execution of this Act, as are conferred and enjoined upon such courts
and officers in sections three, fonr, five, seven, and ten of an Act entitled
"An Act to protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights,
and furnish the means of their vindication," passed April 9, 1866, and these
sections are hereby made a part of this Act; and any of the aforesaid officers
failing to institute and prosecute such proceedings herein required shall for
every such offence forfeit and pay the sum of $500 to the person aggrieved
thereby, to be recovered by an action on the case, with full costs and such
allowance for counsel fees as the court shall deem just, and shall on convic-

214 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL EIGHTS BILL.

tion thereof be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and be fined not less than
f 1,000 nor more than $5,000.

S EC . That no person shall be disqualified for service as juror in any
court, National or State, by reason of race, color, or previous condition of
servitude: Provided, That such person possesses all other qualifications
which are by law prescribed; and any officer or other persons charged with
any duty in the selection or summoning of jurors, who shall exclude or fail
to summon any person for the reason above named, shall, on conviction
thereof, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and be fined not less than
$1,000 nor more than $5,000.

SEC. That every law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, whether
National or State, inconsistent with this Act, or making any discriminations
against any person on account of color, by the use of the word "white," is
hereby repealed and annulled.

SEC. That it shall be the duty of the judges of the several courts upon
which jurisdiction is hereby conferred to give this Act in charge to the
grand jury of their respective courts at the commencement of each term
thereof.

Objection was at once raised to the admission of any amendment
whatever, as imperilling the pending bill, Mr. Alcorn, of Mississippi,
while pressing this, objected further, urging the hazard to the measure
embraced in the proposed amendment from attachment to a bill re-
quiring for its passage a two-thirds' vote instead of the usual simple
majority.

December 21st, Mr. Thurman, of Ohio, objected to the amendment
of Mr. Sumner, on the ground suggested by Mr. Alcorn, raising the
point of order, that, "being a measure which, if it stood by itself,
could be passed by a majority vote of the Senate, it cannot be offered
as an amendment to a bill that requires two-thirds of the Senate."
The objection being overruled, and Mr. Thurman appealing from the
decision of the Chair, a debate ensued on the question of order,
Mr. Thurman, Mr. Bayard of Delaware, Mr. Trumbull of Illinois, Mr.
Davis of Kentucky, and Mr. Sawyer of South Carolina sustaining the
objection, and Mr. Conkling of New York, Mr. Carpenter of Wiscon-
sin, Mr. Edmunds of Vermont, and Mr. Sumner opposing it. In
the course of his speech Mr. Sumner remarked :

DOES not the Act before us .in its body propose a
measure of reconciliation ? Clemency and amnesty it
proposes ; and these, in my judgment, constitute a meas-
ure of reconciliation. And now I add justice to the col-

SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL EIGHTS BILL. 215

ored race. Is not that germane ? Do not the two go
together ? Are they not naturally associated ? Sir, can
they be separated ?

Instead of raising a question of order, I think the
friends of amnesty would be much better employed if
they devoted their strength to secure the passage of my
amendment. Who that is truly in favor of amnesty
will vote against this measure of reconciliation ?

Sir, most anxiously do I seek reconciliation ; but I
know too much of history, too much of my own country,
and I remember too well the fires over which we have
walked in these latter days, not to know that reconcilia-
tion is impossible except on the recognition of Equal
Eights. Vain is the effort of the Senator from Missis-
sippi [Mr. ALCORN] ; he cannot succeed ; he must fail,
and he ought to fail. It is not enough to be generous ;
he must learn to be just. It is not enough to stand by
those who have fought against us ; he must also stand
by those who for generations have borne the ban of
wrong. I listened with sadness to the Senator; he
spoke earnestly and sincerely, but, to my mind, it is
much to be regretted, that, coming into this Chamber
the representative of colored men, he should turn against
them. I know that he will say, " Pass the Amnesty
Bill first, and then take care of the other." I say, Bet-
ter pass the two together ; or if either is lost, let it be
the first. Justice in this world is foremost.

The Senator thinks that the cause of the colored race
is hazarded because my amendment is moved on the
Act for Amnesty. In my judgment, it is advanced.
He says that the Act of Amnesty can pass only by a
two-thirds vote. Well, Sir, I insist that every one of
that two-thirds should record his name for my measure

216 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL EIGHTS BILL.

of reconciliation. If he does not, he is inconsistent with
himself. How, Sir, will an Act of Amnesty be received
when accompanied with denial of justice to the colored
race ? With what countenance can it be presented to
this country ? How will it look to the civilized world ?
Sad page ! The Eecording Angel will have tears, but
not enough to blot it out.

The decision of the Chair was sustained by the vote of the Senate,
Yeas 28, Nays 26, and the amendment was declared in order. On
the question of its adoption it was lost, Yeas 29, Nays 30.

Later in the day, the Amnesty Bill having been reported to the Sen-
ate, Mr. Sumner renewed his amendment. In the debate that ensued
he declared his desire to vote for amnesty ; but he insisted that this
measure did not deserve success, unless with it was justice to the col-
ored race. In reply to Mr. Thunnan, he urged that all regulations of
public institutions should be in conformity with the Declaration of
Independence. " The Senator may smile, but I commend that to his
thoughts during our vacation. Let him consider the binding character
of the Declaration in its fundamental principles. The Senator does not
believe it. There are others who do, and my bill is simply a practical
application of it."

Without taking any vote the Senate adjourned for the holiday recess,
leaving the Amnesty Bill and the pending amendment as unfinished
business.

January 15, 1872, the subject was resumed, when Mr. Sumner made
the following speech.

SPEECH.

MR PRESIDENT, In opening this question, one
of the greatest ever presented to the Senate, I
have had but one hesitation, and that was merely with
regard to the order of .treatment. There is a mass of
important testimony from all parts of the country, from
Massachusetts as well as Georgia, showing the absolute
necessity of Congressional legislation for the protection
of Equal Rights, which I think ought to be laid before
the Senate. It was my purpose to begin with this tes-
timony ; but I have changed my mind, and shall devote
the day to a statement of the question, relying upon the
indulgence of the Senate for another opportunity to in-
troduce the evidence. I ask that the pending amend-
ment be read.

The Chief Clerk read the amendment, which was to append to the
Amnesty Bill, as additional sections,. the Supplementary Civil Rights
Bill.

Mr. Sumner resumed :

Mr. President, Slavery, in its foremost pretensions,
reappears in the present debate. Again the barbarous
tyranny stalks into this Chamber, denying to a whole
race the Equal Rights promised by a just citizenship.
Some have thought Slavery dead. This is a mistake.
If not in body, at least in spirit, or as a ghost making

218 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL EIGHTS BILL.

the country hideous, the ancient criminal yet lingers
among us, insisting upon the continued degradation of
a race.

Property in man has ceased to exist. The human
auction-block has departed. No human being can call
himself master, with impious power to separate husband
and wife, to sell child from parent, to shut out the op-
portunities of religion, to close the gates of knowledge,
and to rob another of his labor and all its fruits. These
guilty prerogatives are ended. To this extent the slave
is free. No longer a chattel, he is a man, justly en-
titled to all that is accorded by law to any other man.

Such is the irresistible logic of his emancipation.
Ceasing to be a slave, he became a man, whose foremost
right is Equality of Rights. And yet Slavery has been
strong enough to postpone his entry into the great pos-
session. Cruelly, he was not permitted to testify in
court ; most unjustly, he- was not allowed to vote.
More than four millions of people, whose only offence
was a skin once the badge of Slavery, were shut out
from the court-room, and also from the ballot-box, in
open defiance of the great Declaration of our fathers,
that all men are equal in rights, and that just govern-
ment stands only on the consent of the governed. Such
was the impudent behest of Slavery, prolonged after it
was reported dead. At last these crying wrongs are
overturned. The slave testifies; the slave votes. To
this extent his equality is recognized.

EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW.

BUT this is not enough. Much as it may seem, com-
pared with the past, when all was denied, it is too little,

EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW. 219

because all is not yet recognized. The denial of any
right is a wrong darkening the enjoyment of all the rest.
Besides the right to testify and the right to vote, there
are other rights without which Equality does not exist.
The precise rule is Equality before the Law, nor more
nor less ; that is, that condition before the law in which
all are alike, being entitled, without discrimination,
to the equal enjoyment of all institutions, privileges,
advantages, and conveniences created or regulated by
law, among which are the right to testify and the right
to vote. But this plain requirement is not satisfied, log-
ically or reasonably, by these two concessions, so that
when they are recognized all others are trifles. The
co art-house and the ballot-box are not the only places
for the rule. These two are not the only institutions
for its operation. The rule is general; how, then, re-
strict it to two cases ? It is, All are equal before the
law, not merely before the law in two cases, but be-
fore the law in all cases, without limitation or exception.
Important as it is to testify and to vote, life is not all
contained even in these possessions.

The new-made citizen is called to travel for business,
for health, or for pleasure ; but here his trials begin.
His money, whether gold or paper, is the same as the
white man's ; but the doors of the public hotel, which
from the earliest days of jurisprudence have always
opened hospitably to the stranger, close against him,
and the public conveyances, which the Common Law
declares equally free to all alike, have no such freedom
for him. He longs, perhaps, for respite and relaxation
at some place of public amusement, duly licensed by
law ; and here also the same adverse discrimination is
made. With the anxieties of a parent, seeking the

220 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL EIGHTS BILL.

welfare of his child, he strives to bestow upon him the
inestimable blessings of education, and takes him affec-
tionately to the common school, created by law, and
supported by the taxation to which he has contributed ;
but these doors slam rudely in the face of the child
where is garnered up the parent's heart. " Suffer little
children, and forbid them not, to come unto me " : such
were the words of the Divine Master. But among us
little children are turned away and forbidden at the
door of the common school, because of the skin. And
the same insulting ostracism shows itself in other insti-
tutions of science and learning, also in the church, and
in the last resting-place on earth.

Two instances occur, which have been mentioned
already on this floor ; but their eminence in illustration
of an unquestionable grievance justifies the repetition.

CASE OF FREDERICK DOUGLASS.

ONE is the well-known case of Frederick Douglass,
who, returning home after earnest service of weeks as
Secretary of the Commission to report on the people of
San Domingo and the expediency of incorporating them
with the United States, was rudely excluded from the
table, where his brother commissioners were already
seated, on board the mail-steamer of the Potomac, just
before reaching the President, whose commission he
bore. This case, if not aggravated, is made conspicuous
by peculiar circumstances. Mr. Douglass is a gentle-
man of unquestioned ability and character, remarkable
as an orator, refined in manners, and personally agree-
able. He was returning, charged with the mission of
bringing under our institutions a considerable popula-

CASE OF LIEUTENANT -GOVERNOR DUNN. 221

tion of colored foreigners, whose prospective treatment
among us was foreshadowed on board that mail-steamer.
The Dominican Baez could not expect more than our
fellow-citizen. And yet, with this mission, and with
the personal recommendation he so justly enjoys, this
returning Secretary could not be saved from outrage
even in sight of the Executive Mansion.

CASE OF LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR DUNN.

THERE also was Oscar James Dunn, late Lieutenant-
Governor of Louisiana. It was my privilege to open
the door of the Senate Chamber and introduce him up-
on this floor. Then, in reply to my inquiry, he recount-
ed the hardships to which he had been exposed in the
long journey from Louisiana, especially how he was
denied the ordinary accommodations for comfort and
repose supplied to those of another skin. This denial
is memorable, not only from the rank, but the charac-
ter of the victim. Of blameless life, he was an exam-
ple of integrity. He was poor, but could not be bought
or bribed. Duty with him was more than riches. A
fortune was offered for his signature; but he spurned
the temptation.

And yet this model character, high in the confidence
of his fellow-citizens, and in the full enjoyment of polit-
ical power, was doomed to suffer the blasting influence
which still finds support in this Chamber. He is dead
at last, and buried with official pomp. The people,
counted by tens of thousands, thronged the streets while
his obsequies proceeded. An odious discrimination was
for the time suspended. In life rejected by the conduc-
tor of a railway because of his skin, he was borne to his

222 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

last resting-place with all the honors an afflicted com-
munity could bestow. Only in his coffin was the ban
of color lifted, and the dead statesman admitted to that
equality which is the right of all.

REQUIREMENT OF REPUBLICAN INSTITUTIONS.

THESE are marked instances ; but they are types. If
Frederick Douglass and Oscar James Dunn could be
made to suffer, how much must others be called to en-
dure ! All alike, the feeble, the invalid, the educated,
the refined, women as well as men, are shut out from
the ordinary privileges of the steamboat or rail-car, and
driven into a vulgar sty with smokers and rude persons,
where the conversation is as offensive as the scene, and
then again at the roadside inn are denied that shelter
and nourishment without which travel is impossible.
Do you doubt this constant, wide-spread outrage, ex-
tending in uncounted ramifications throughout the whole
land ? With sorrow be it said, it reaches everywhere,
even into Massachusetts. Not a State which does not
need the benign correction. The evidence is on your
table in numerous petitions. And there is other evi-
dence, already presented by me, showing how individu-
als have suffered from this plain denial of equal rights.
Who that has a heart can listen to the story without in-
dignation and shame ? Who with a spark of justice to
illumine his soul can hesitate to denounce the wrong ?
Who that rejoices in republican institutions will not
help to overthrow the tyranny by which they are de-
graded ?

I do not use too strong language, when I expose this
tyranny as a degradation to republican institutions, ay,

REAL ISSUE OF THE WAR. 223

Sir, in their fundamental principle. Why is the Declara-
tion of Independence our Magna Charta ? Not because
it declares separation from a distant kingly power ; but
because it announces the lofty truth that all are equal
in rights, and, as a natural consequence, that just govern-
ment stands only on the consent of the governed, all
of which is held to be self-evident. Such is the soul of
republican institutions, without which the Republic is a
failure, a name and nothing more. Call it a Republic,
if you will, but it is in reality a soulless mockery.

Equality in rights is not only the first of rights, it is
an axiom of political truth. But an axiom, whether of
science or philosophy, is universal, and without excep-
tion or limitation ; and this is according to the very law
of its nature. Therefore it is not stating an axiom to
announce grandly that only white men are equal in
rights ; nor is it stating an axiom to announce with the
same grandeur that all persons are equal in rights, but
that colored persons have no rights except to testify and
vote. Nor is it a self-evident truth, as declared ; for no
truth is self-evident which is not universal. The as-
serted limitation destroys the original Declaration, mak-
ing it a ridiculous sham, instead of that sublime Magna
Charta before which kings, nobles, and all inequalities of
birth must disappear as ghosts of night at the dawn.

REAL ISSUE OF THE WAR.

ALL this has additional force, when it is known that
this very axiom or self-evident truth declared by our
fathers was the real issue of the war, and was so pub-
licly announced by the leaders on both sides. Behind
the embattled armies were ideas, and the idea on our

224 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

side was Equality in Rights, which on the other side
was denied. The Nation insisted that all men are cre-
ated equal; the Rebellion insisted that all men are
created unequal. Here the evidence is explicit.

The inequality of men was an original postulate of
Mr. Calhoun, 1 which found final expression in the open
denunciation of the self-evident truth as " a self-evident
lie." 2 Echoing this denunciation, Jefferson Davis, on
leaving the Senate, January 21, 1861, in that farewell
speech which some among you heard, but which all may
read in the " Globe," made the issue in these words :

" It has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the
Union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us,
which has brought Mississippi into her present decision. She
has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free
and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social
institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence lias
been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the
races." *

The issue thus made by the chief Rebel was promptly
joined. Abraham Lincoln, the elected President, stop-
ping at Independence Hall, February 22d, on his way to
assume his duties at the National capital, in unpremed-
itated words thus interpreted the Declaration :

"It was that which gave promise that in due time the
weight should be lifted from the shoulders of all men, and
that all should have an equal chance."

l Speech in the Senate, on the Oregon Bill, June 27, 1848: Speeches,
VoL IV. pp. 507-12.

a Speech of Mr. Pettit, of Indiana, in the Senate, on the Nebraska and
Kansas Bill, February 20, 1854: Congressional Globe, 33d Cong. 1st Sess.,
p. -214.

1 Congressional Globe, 36th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 487.

REAL ISSUE OF THE WAR. 225

Mark, if you please, the simplicity of this utterance.
All are to have " an equal chance " ; and this, he said,
" is the sentiment embodied in the Declaration of Inde-
pendence." Then, in reply to Jefferson Davis, he pro-
ceeded :

" Now, my friends, can this country be saved upon that
basis 1 If it can, I shall consider myself one of the happiest
men in the world, if I can help to save it. If it cannot be
saved upon that principle, it will be truly awful. But if this
country cannot be saved without giving up that principle, I
was about to say I would rather be assassinated on this spot
than surrender it."

Giving these words still further solemnity, he added :

" I have said nothing but what I am willing to live by,
and, if it be the pleasure of Almighty God, to die by."

And then, before raising the national banner over the
historic Hall, he said :

"It is on such an occasion as this that we can reason
together, and reaffirm our devotion to the country and the
principles of the Declaration of Independence." 1

Thus the gauntlet flung down by Jefferson Davis
was taken up by Abraham Lincoln, who never forgot
the issue.

The rejoinder was made by Alexander H. Stephens,
Vice-President of the Eebellion, in a not-to-be forgotten
speech at Savannah, March 21, 1861, when he did not
hesitate to declare of the pretended Government, that

" Its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the
great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man."

1 Crosby's Life of Lincoln, (Philadelphia, 1865,) pp. 86, 87. Philadel-
phia Inquirer, February 23, 1S61.
VOL. xix. 15

226 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL EIGHTS BILL.

Then, glorying in this terrible shame, he added :

" This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of
the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and
moral truth."

"This stone, which was rejected by the first builders, is
become the chief stone of the corner." 1

To this unblushing avowal Abraham Lincoln replied
in that marvellous, undying utterance at Gettysburg,
fit voice for the Eepublic, greater far than any victory :

"Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth
on this continent a new Nation, conceived in Liberty, and ded-
icated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

Thus, in precise conformity with the Declaration, was
it announced that our Republic is dedicated to the Equal
Rights of All ; and then the prophet-President, soon to
be a martyr, asked his countrymen to dedicate them-
selves to the great task remaining, highly resolving

" that this Nation, under God, shall have a new birth of Free-
dom ; and that Government of the people, by the people, and
for the people shall not perish from the earth." *

The victory of the war is vain without the grander
victory through which the Republic is dedicated to the
axiomatic, self-evident truth declared by our fathers,
and reasserted by Abraham Lincoln. With this mighty
truth as a guiding principle, the National Constitution
is elevated, and made more than ever a protection to
the citizen.

1 Rebellion Record, Vol. I., Documents, pp. 45, 46.

2 Address at the Consecration of the National Cemetery at Gettysburg,
November 19, 1863. " Copied from the original." Arnold's History of
Abraham Lincoln and the Overthrow of Slavery, (Chicago, 1866,) pp.
423-46.

NO QUESTION OF SOCIETY. 227

All this is so plain that it is difficult to argue it.
What is the Eepublic, if it fails in this loyalty ? What
is the National Government, coextensive with the Ee-
public, if fellow-citizens, counted by the million, can be
shut out from equal rights in travel, in recreation, in ed-
ucation, and in other things, all contributing to human
necessities ? Where is that great promise by which
" the pursuit of happiness " is placed, with life and lib-
erty, under the safeguard of axiomatic, self-evident
truth ? Where is justice, if this ban of color is not
promptly removed? Where is humanity? Where is
reason?

TWO EXCUSES.

THE two excuses show how irrational and utterly
groundless is this pretension. They are on a par with
the pretension itself. One is, that the question is of
society, and not of rights, which is clearly a misrepre-
sentation ; and the other is, that the separate arrange-
ments provided for colored persons constitute a substi-
tute for equality in the nature of an equivalent, all
of which is clearly a contrivance, if not a trick: as
if there could be any equivalent for equality.

NO QUESTION OF SOCIETY.

OF the first excuse it is difficult to speak with pa-
tience. It is a simple misrepresentation, and wherever
it shows itself must be treated as such. There is no
colored person who does not resent the imputation that
he is seeking to intrude himself socially anywhere. This
is no question of society, no question of social life,
no question of social equality, if anybody Jpiows what

228 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

this means. The object is simply Equality before the
Law, a term which explains itself. Now, as the law
does not presume to create or regulate social relations,
these are in no respect affected by the pending measure.
Each person, whether Senator or citizen, is always free
to choose who shall be his friend, his associate, his
guest. And does not the ancient proverb declare that
" a man is known by the company he keeps " ? But
this assumes that he may choose for himself. His
house is his " castle " ; and this very designation, bor-
rowed from the Common Law, shows his absolute inde-
pendence within its walls ; nor is there any difference,
whether it be palace or hovel. But when he leaves his
"castle" and goes abroad, this independence is at an
end. He walks the streets, but always subject to the
prevailing law of Equality ; nor can he appropriate the
sidewalk to his own exclusive use, driving into the gut-
ter all whose skin is less white than his own. But no-
body pretends that Equality in the highway, whether on
pavement or sidewalk, is a question of society. And
permit me to say that Equality in all institutions cre-
ated or regulated by law is as little a question of
society.

In the days of Slavery it was an oft-repi ated charge,
that Emancipation was a measure of social equality ; and
the same charge became a cry at the successive efforts
for the right to testify and the right to vote. At each
stage the cry was raised, and now it makes itself heard
again, as you are called to assure this crowning safe-
guard.

EQUALITY NOT FOUND IN EQUIVALENTS. 229

EQUALITY NOT FOUND IN EQUIVALENTS.

THEN comes the other excuse, which finds Equality in
separation. Separate hotels, separate conveyances, sepa-
rate theatres, separate schools and institutions of learning
and science, separate churches, and separate cemeteries,
these are the artificial substitutes. And this is the
contrivance by which a transcendent right, involving a
transcendent duty, is evaded : for Equality is not only
a right, but a duty.

How vain to argue that there is no denial of Equal
Eights when this separation is enforced ! The substi-
tute is invariably an inferior article. Does any Senator
deny it ? Therefore, it is not Equality ; at best it is an
equivalent only. But no equivalent is Equality. Sepa-
ration implies one thing for a white person and another
thing for a colored person; but Equality is where all
have the same alike. There can be no substitute for
Equality, nothing but itself. Even if accommoda-
tions are the same, as notoriously they are not, there is
no Equality. In the process of substitution the vital
elixir exhales and escapes: it is lost, and cannot be
recovered; for Equality is found only in Equality.
"Nought but itself can be its parallel"; but Senators
undertake to find parallels in other things.

As well make weight in silver the equivalent for
weight in diamonds, according to the illustration of Sel-
den in his famous "Table-Talk." "If," remarked the
learned interlocutor, " I said I owed you twenty pounds
in silver, and you said I owed you twenty pounds of
diamonds, which is a sum innumerable, 't is impossible
we should ever agree." 1 But Equality is weight in

l Table-Talk ; The King.

230 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL EIGHTS BILL,

diamonds, and a sum innumerable, which is very dif-
ferent from weight in silver.

Assuming what is most absurd to assume, and
what is contradicted by all experience that a substi-
tute can be an equivalent, it is so in form only, and not
in reality. Every such assumption is an indignity to
the colored race, instinct with the spirit of Slavery ; and
this decides its character. It is Slavery in its last ap-
pearance. Are you ready to prolong the hateful tyranny ?
Eeligion and reason condemn Caste as impious and un-
christian, making republican institutions and equal laws
impossible ; but here is Caste not unlike that which
separates the Sudra from the Brahmin. Pray, Sir, who
constitutes the white man a Brahmin ? Whence his
lordly title ? Down to a recent period in Europe the
Jews were driven to herd by themselves, separate from
the Christians ; but this discarded barbarism is revived
among us in the ban of color. There are millions of
fellow-citizens guilty of no offence except the dusky
livery of the sun appointed by the Heavenly Father,
whom you treat as others have created the Jews, as
the Brahmin treats the Sudra. But, pray, Sir, do not
pretend that this is the great equality promised by our
fathers.

In arraigning this attempt at separation as a Caste, I
say nothing new. For years I have denounced it as
such ; and here I followed good authorities, as well as
reason. Alexander von Humboldt, speaking of the
negroes of New Mexico when Slavery prevailed, called
them a Caste. 1 A recent political and juridical writer
of France uses the same term to denote not only the dis-
crimination in India, but that in our own country,

1 Eusai Politiqne sur le Royaume de La Nouvelle Espagne, Liv. II. ch. 6.

THE REMEDY. 231

especially referring to the exclusion of colored children
from the common schools as among "the humiliating
and brutal distinctions " by which their Caste is char-
acterized. 1 The principle of separation on the ground of
hereditary inferiority is the distinctive essence of Caste ;
but this is the outrage which flaunts in our country,
crying out, " I am better than thou, because I am white.
Get away ! "

THE REMEDY.

THUS do I reject the two excuses. But I do not
leave the cause here. I go further, and show how con-
sistent is the pending measure with acknowledged prin-
ciples, illustrated by undoubted law.

The bill for Equal Eights is simply supplementary to
the existing Civil Eights Law, which is one of our great
statutes of peace, and it stands on the same require-
ments of the National Constitution. If the Civil Eights
Law is above question, as cannot be doubted, then also
is this supplementary amendment; for it is only the
complement of the other, and necessary to its comple-
tion. Without this amendment the original law is
imperfect. It cannot be said, according to its title,
that all persons are protected in their civil rights, so
long as the outrages I expose continue to exist; nor
is Slavery entirely dead.

Following reason and authority, the conclusion is
easy. A Law Dictionary, of constant use as a repertory
of established rules and principles, defines a " freeman "
as " one in the possession of the civil rights enjoyed by
the people generally." 2 Happily, all are freemen now ;

l Charles Comte, Traite de Legislation, Tom. IV., pp. 129, 445.
* Bouvier, Law Dictionary, (3d edit.,) art. FREEMAN.

232 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

but the colored people are still excluded from civil
rights enjoyed by the people generally, and this, too,
in the face of our new Bill of Eights intended for their
especial protection.

By the Constitutional Amendment abolishing Slavery
Congress is empowered " to enforce this article by appro-
priate legislation " ; and in pursuance thereof the Civil
Eights Law was enacted. That measure was justly ac-
cepted as " appropriate legislation. Without it Slavery
would still exist in at least one of its most odious pre-
tensions. By the Civil Rights Law colored persons
were assured in the right to testify, which in most of
the States was denied or abridged. So closely was this
outrage connected with Slavery, that it was, indeed, part
of this great wrong. Therefore its prohibition was " ap-
propriate legislation " in the enforcement of the Consti-
tutional Amendment. : But the denial or abridgment of
Equality on account of color is also part of Slavery. So
long as it exists, Slavery is still present among us. Its
prohibition is not only " appropriate," but necessary, to
enforce the Constitutional Amendment. Therefore is
it strictly Constitutional, as if in the very text of the
National Constitution.

The next Constitutional Amendment, known as the
Fourteenth, contains two different provisions, which
augment the power of Congress. The first furnishes
the definition of "citizen," which down to this time
had been left to construction only:

"Alt persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
States, and of the States wherever they reside."

Here, you will remark, are no words of race or color.

THE REMEDY. 233

"All persons," and not "all white persons," born or
naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are " citizens." Such is the defi-
nition supplied by this Amendment. This is followed
by another provision in aid of the definition :

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States ; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty,
or property without due process of law, nor deny to any per-
son within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

And Congress is empowered to enforce this defini-
tion of Citizenship and this guaranty, by " appropriate
legislation."

Here, then, are two Constitutional Amendments, each
a fountain of power : the first, to enforce the Abolition
of Slavery ; and the second, to assure the privileges and
immunities of citizens, and also the equal protection of
the laws. If the Supplementary Civil Eights Bill,
moved by me, is not within these accumulated powers,
I am at a loss to know what is within those powers.

In considering these Constitutional provisions, I in-
sist upon that interpretation which shall give them the
most generous expansion, so that they shall be truly
efficacious for human rights. Once Slavery was the
animating principle in determining the meaning of
the National Constitution : happily, it is so no longer.
Another principle is now supreme, breathing into the
whole the breath of a new life, and filling it in every
part with one pervading, controlling sentiment, being
that great principle of Equality which triumphed at last
on the battle-field, and, bearing the watchword of the
Republic, now supplies the rule by which every word of

234 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL EIGHTS BILL.

the Constitution and all its parts must be interpreted, as
much as if written in its text.

There is also an original provision of the National
Constitution, not to be forgotten :

" The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privi-
leges and immunities of citizens in the several States."

Once a sterile letter, this is now a fruitful safeguard,
to be interpreted, like all else, so that human rights
shall most prevail. The term " privileges and immuni-
ties" was at an early day authoritatively defined by
Judge Washington, who announced that they embraced
" protection by the Government, the enjoyment of life
and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess prop-
erty of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness
and safety, .... the right of a citizen of one State to
pass through or to reside in any other State, for pur-
poses of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or oth-
erwise." 1 But these "privileges and immunities" are
protected by the present measure.

No doubt the Supplementary Law must operate, not
only in National jurisdiction, but also in the States,
precisely as the Civil Rights Law ; otherwise it will be
of little value. Its sphere must be coextensive with
the Republic, making the rights of the citizen uni-
form everywhere. But this can be only by one uniform
safeguard sustained by the Nation. Citizenship is uni-
versal, and the same everywhere. It cannot be more or
less in one State than in another.

But legislation is not enough. An enlightened pub-
lic opinion must be invoked. Nor will this be wanting.
The country will rally in aid of the law, more especially

Corfieldv. Coryell, 4 Washington, C. C. R., 381.

THE REMEDY. 235

since it is a measure of justice and humanity. The law
is needed now as a help to public opinion. It is needed
by the very people whose present conduct makes occa-
sion for it. Prompted by the law, leaning on the law,
they will recognize the equal rights of all ; nor do I des-
pair of .a public opinion which shall stamp the denial
of these rights as an outrage not unlike Slavery itself.
Custom and patronage will then be sought in obeying
the law. People generally are little better than actors,
for whom it was once said:

"Ah, let not Censure term our fate our choice:
The stage but echoes back the public voice;
The drama's laws the drama's patrons give ;
For we that live to please must please to live." *

In the absence of the law people please too often by
inhumanity, but with the law teaching the lesson of
duty they will please by humanity. Thus will the law
be an instrument of improvement, necessary in precise
proportion to existing prejudice. Because people still
please by inhumanity, therefore must there be a coun-
teracting force. This precise exigency was foreseen by
Rousseau, remarkable as writer and thinker, in a work
which startled the world, when he said:

" It is precisely because the force of things tends always
to destroy equality that the force of legislation should always
tend to maintain it." a

Never was a truer proposition ; and now let us look
at the cases for its application.

1 Johnson : Prologue spoken by Mr. Oarrick at the opening of the Thea-
tre Royal, Drury Lane, 1747.

J Du Contrat Social, Liv. II. ch. 11.

236 SUPPLEMENTAL CIVIL EIGHTS BILL.

PUBLIC HOTELS.

I BEGIN with Public Hotels or Inns, because the rule
with regard to them may be traced to the earliest peri-
ods of the Common Law. In the Chronicles of Holins-
hed, written in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, is a chap-
ter "Of our Inns and Thoroughfares," where the inn,
which is the original term for hotel, is described as
" builded for the receiving of such travellers and stran-
gers as pass to and fro " ; and then the chronicler, boast-
ing of his own country as compared with others, says,
" Every man may use his inn as his own house in Eng-
land." l In conformity with this boast was the law of
England. The inn was opened to " every man." And
this rule has continued from that early epoch, anterior
to the first English settlement of North America, down
to this day. The inn is a public institution, with well-
known rights and duties. Among the latter is the duty
to receive all paying travellers decent in appearance and
conduct, wherein it is distinguished from a lodging-
house or boarding-house, which is a private concern,,
and not subject to the obligations of the inn.

For this statement I might cite authorities beginning
with the infancy of the law, and not ending even with a
late decision of the Superior Court of New York, where
an inn is defined to be " a public house of entertainment
for all who choose to visit it" 2 which differs very little
from the descriptive words of Holinshed.

The summary of our great jurist, Judge Story, shows
the law :

1 Chronicles, (London, 1807,) Vol. I. p. 414 : Description of England,
Book TIT. ch. 16.
a Wintermute v. Clarke, 5 Sandford, R., 247.

PUBLIC HOTELS. 237

" An innkeeper is bound to take in all travellers and way-
faring persons, and to entertain them, if he can accommodate
them, for a reasonable compensation. .... If an innkeeper
improperly refuses to receive or provide for a guest, he is
liable to be indicted therefor." 1

Chancellor Kent states the rule briefly, but with ful-
ness and precision :

"An innkeeper cannot lawfully refuse to receive guests to
the extent of his reasonable accommodations ; nor can he im-
pose unreasonable terms upon them." 2

This great authority says again, quoting a decided
case :

" Innkeepers are liable to an action if they refuse to re-
ceive a guest without just cause. The innkeeper is even
indictable for the refusal, if he has room in his house and
the guest behaves properly." 8

And Professor Parsons, in his work on Contracts, so
familiar to lawyers and students, says :

" He cannot so refuse, unless his house is full and he is
actually unable to receive him. And if on false pretences he
refuses, he is liable to an action." *

The importance of this rule in determining present
duty will justify another statement in the language of
a popular Encyclopaedia:

" One of the incidents of an innkeeper is, that he is bound
to open his house to all travellers, without distinction, and has
no option to refuse such refreshment, shelter, and accommodation
-as he possesses, provided the person who applies is of the de-

1 Law of Bailments. 476. * 2 Commentaries, 597, note.

* 2 Commentaries, 592, note. 4 2 Law of Contracts, 150.

238 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL EIGHTS BILL.

ecription of a traveller, and able and ready to pay the cus-
tomary hire, and is not drunk or disorderly or tainted with
infectious disease."

And the Encyclopaedia adds :

"As some compensation for this compulsory hospitality, the
innkeeper is allowed certain privileges." l

Thus is the innkeeper under constraint of law, which
he must obey; "bound to take in all travellers and
wayfaring persons " ; " nor can he impose unreasonable
terms upon them " ; and liable to an action, and even to
an indictment, for refusal. Such is the law.

With this peremptory rule opening the doors of inns
to all travellers, without distinction, to the extent of
authorizing not only an action, but an indictment, for
the refusal to receive a traveller, it is plain that the
pending bill is only declaratory of existing law, giving
to it the sanction of Congress.

PUBLIC CONVEYANCES.

PUBLIC CONVEYANCES, whether on land or water, are
known to the law as common carriers, and they, too,
have obligations, not unlike those of inns. Common
carriers are grouped with innkeepers, especially in duty
to passengers. Here again the learned Judge is our
authority :

"The first and most general obligation on their part is
to carry passengers, whenever they offer themselves and are
ready to pay for their transportation. This results from their
getting themselves up, like innkeepers and common carriers of
goods, for a common public employment, on hire. They are no
1 Chambers's Encyclopaedia, art. INN and INNKEEPER.

PUBLIC CONVEYANCES. 239

more at liberty to refuse a passenger, if they have sufficient
room and accommodation, than an innkeeper is to refuse suit-
able room and accommodations to a guest." 1

Professor Parsons states the rule strongly :

" It is his duty to receive all passengers who offer ; to
carry them the whole route; to demand no more than the
usual and established compensation ; to treat all his passen-
gers alike ; to behave to all with civility and propriety ; to
provide suitable carriages and means of transport ; . . . . and
for the default of his servants or agents in any of the above
particulars, or generally in any other points of duty, the car-
rier is directly responsible, as well as for any circumstance of
aggravation which attended the wrong." 3

The same rule, in its application to railroads, has been
presented by a learned writer with singular force :

" The company is under a public duty, as a common car-
rier of passengers, to receive all who offer themselves as such
and are ready to pay the usual fare, and is liable in damages
to a party whom it refuses to carry without a reasonable ex-
cuse. It may decline to carry persons after its means of con-
veyance have been exhausted, and refuse such as persist in
not complying with its reasonable regulations, or whose im-
proper behaviour as by their drunkenness, obscene language,
or vulgar conduct renders them an annoyance to other pas-
sengers. But it cannot make unreasonable discriminations be-
tween persons soliciting its means of conveyance, as by refusing
them on account of personal dislike, their occupation, condition
in life, COMPLEXION, RACE, nativity, political or ecclesiastical
relations." *

It has also been affirmed by the Supreme Court of

1 Story, Law of Bailments, 591.

2 Law of Contracts, 225-29.

8 Pierce, American Railroad Law, 489.

240 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

Pennsylvania, where, on account of color, a person had
been excluded from a street car in Philadelphia. 1

The pending bill simply reinforces this rule, which,
without Congress, ought to be sufficient. But since it
is set at nought by an odious discrimination, Congress
must interfere.

PLACES OF PUBLIC AMUSEMENT.

THEATRES and other places of Public Amusement,
licensed by law, are kindred to inns or public convey-
ances, though less noticed by jurisprudence. But, like
their prototypes, they undertake to provide for the pub-
lic under sanction of law. They are public institutions,
regulated, if not created, by law, enjoying privileges, and
in consideration thereof assuming duties, kindred to
those of the inn and the public conveyance. From
essential reason, the rule should be the same with all.
As the inn cannot close its doors, or the public convey-
ance refuse a seat, to any paying traveller, decent in
condition, so must it be with the theatre and other
places of public amusement. Here are institutions
whose peculiar object is " the pursuit of happiness,"
which has been placed among the Equal Eights of All.
How utterly irrational the pretension to outrage a large
portion of the community ! The law can lend itself to
no such intolerable absurdity ; and this, I insist, shall
be declared by Congress.

1 West Chester and Philadelphia Railroad Co. v. Miles ; 55 Pennsylvania
State R., 209 (1867).

COMMON SCHOOLS. 241

COMMON SCHOOLS.

THE Common School falls naturally into the same
category. Like the others, it must open to all, or its
designation is a misnomer and a mockery. It is not a
school for whites, or a school for blacks, but a school for
all, in other words, a common school. Much is im-
plied in this term, according to which the school harmo-
nizes with the other institutions already mentioned. It
is an inn where children rest on the road to knowledge.
It is a public conveyance where children are passengers.
It is a theatre where children resort for enduring recre-
ation. Like the others, it assumes to provide for the
public ; therefore it must be open to all : nor can there
be any exclusion, except on grounds equally applicable
to the inn, the public conveyance, and the theatre.

But the common school has a higher character. Its
object is the education of the young ; and it is sustained
by taxation, to which all contribute. Not only does it
hold itself out to the public by its name and its har-
mony with the other institutions, but it assumes the
place of parent to all children within its locality, bound
always to exercise a parent's watchful care and tender-
ness, which can know no distinction of child.

It is easy to see that the separate school, founded on
an odious discrimination, and sometimes offered as an
equivalent for the common school, is an ill-disguised
violation of the principle of Equality, while as a pre-
tended equivalent it is an utter failure, and instead of a
parent is only a churlish step-mother.

A slight illustration will show how it fails ; and here
I mention an incident occurring in Washington, but
which must repeat itself often on a larger scale, wher-

VOL. XIX. 16

242 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

ever separation is attempted. Colored children, living
near what is called the common school, are driven from
its doors, and compelled to walk a considerable distance
often troublesome, and in certain conditions of the
weather difficult to attend the separate school. One
of these children has suffered from this exposure, and I
have myself witnessed the emotion of the parent. This
could not have occurred, had the child been received at
the common school in the neighborhood. Now it is idle
to assert that children compelled to this exceptional
journey to and fro are in the enjoyment of Equal Eights.
The superadded pedestrianism and its attendant discom-
fort furnish the measure of Inequality in one of its forms,
increased by the weakness or ill-health of the child.
What must be the feelings of a colored father or mother
daily witnessing this sacrifice to the demon of Caste ?

This is an illustration merely, but it shows precisely
how impossible it is for a separate school to be the
equivalent of the common school. And yet it only
touches the evil, without exhibiting its proportions.
The indignity offered to the colored child is worse than
any compulsory exposure ; and here not only the child
suffers, but the race to which he belongs is degraded,
and the whole community is hardened in wrong.

The separate school wants the first requisite of the
common school, inasmuch as it is not equally open to
all ; and since this is inconsistent with the declared rule
of republican institutions, such a school is not republi-
can in character. Therefore it is not a preparation for
the duties of life. The child is not trained in the way
he should go ; for he is trained under the ban of Ine-
quality. How can he grow up to the stature of equal
citizenship ? He is pinched and dwarfed while the

COMMON SCHOOLS. 243

stigma of color is stamped upon him. This is plain
oppression, which you, Sir, would feel keenly, were it
directed against you or your child. Surely the race en-
slaved for generations has suffered enough without being
doomed to this prolonged proscription. Will not the
Republic, redeemed by most costly sacrifice, insist upon
justice to the children of the land, making the common
school the benign example of republican institutions,
where merit is the only ground of favor ?

Nor is separation without evil to the whites. The
prejudice of color is nursed, when it should be stifled.
The Pharisaism of race becomes an element of character,
when, like all other Pharisaisms, it should be cast out.
Better even than knowledge is a kindly nature and the
sentiment of equality. Such should be the constant
lesson, repeated by the lips and inscribed on the heart ;
but the school itself must practise the lesson. Children
learn by example more than by precept. How precious
the example which teaches that all are equal in rights !
But this can be only where all commingle in the com-
mon school as in common citizenship. There is no
separate ballot-box : there should be no separate school
It is not enough that all should be taught alike ; they
must all be taught together. They are not only to re-
ceive equal quantities of knowledge ; all are to receive
it in the same way. But they cannot be taught alike,
unless all are taught together; nor can they receive
equal quantities of knowledge in the same way, except
at the common school.

The common school is important to all; but to the
colored child it is a necessity. Excluded from the com-
mon school, he finds himself too frequently without any
substitute. But even where a separate school is planted,

244 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

it is inferior in character, buildings, furniture, books,
teachers : all are second-rate. ISTo matter what the tem-
porary disposition, the separate school will not flourish
as the common school. It is but an offshoot or sucker,
without the strength of the parent stem. That the two
must differ is seen at once; and that this difference is
adverse to the colored child is equally apparent. For
him there is no assurance of education except in the
common school, where he will be under the safeguard
of all. White parents will take care not only that the
common school is not neglected, but that its teachers
and means of instruction are the best possible ; and the
colored child will have the benefit of this watchfulness.
This decisive consideration completes the irresistible
argument for the common school as the equal parent
of all without distinction of color.

If to him that hath is given, according to the way of
the world, it is not doubted that to him that hath not
there is a positive duty in proportion to the necessity.
Unhappily, our colored fellow-citizens are in this condi-
tion. But just in proportion as they are weak, and not
yet recovered from the degradation in which they have
been plunged, does the Republic owe its cpmpletest sup-
port and protection. Already a component part of our
political corporation, they must become part of the edu-
cational corporation also, with Equality as the supreme
law.

OTHER PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS.

IT is with humiliation that I am forced to insist upon
the same equality in other public institutions of learn-
ing and science, also in churches, and in the last rest-
ing-places of the dead. So far as any of these are pub-
lic in character and organized by law, they must follow

OTHER PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS. 245

the general requirement. How strange that any insti-
tution of learning or science, any church, or any ceme-
tery should set up a discrimination so utterly inconsis-
tent with correct principle ! But I do not forget that
only recently a colored officer of the National Army was
treated with indignity at the communion-table. To in-
sult the dead is easier, although condemned by Chris-
tian precept and heathen example. As in birth, so in
death are all alike, beginning with the same naked-
ness, and ending in the same decay ; nor do worms spare
the white body more than the black This equal lot has
been the frequent occasion of sentiment and of poetry.
Horace has pictured pallid Death with impartial foot
knocking at the cottages of the poor and the towers
of kings. 1 In the same spirit the early English poet,
author of "Piers Ploughman," shows the lowly and
the great in their common house:

" For in charnel at chirche
Cherles ben yvel to knowe,
Or a knyght from a knave there." *

And Chaucer even denies the distinction in life :

" But understood in thine entent
That this is not mine entendement,
To clepe no wight in no ages
Onely gentle for his linages :
Though he be not gentle borne,
Than maiest well seine this in sooth,
That he is gentle because he doth
As longeth to a gentleman." *

1 "Pallida Mors aequo pulsat pede panperum tabernas,

Regumque turres." Carm. I. iv. 13-14.

* This sentiment of Equality appears also in the " Roman de la Rose,"
an early poem of France, where the bodies of princes are said to be worth
no more than that of a ploughman :

" Car lor core ne vault une pomme
Oultre le core d'ung charruier. " w. 18792-3.

Romaunt of the Rose, 2187-97 : Poetical Works, ed. Tyrwhitt (Lon-
don, Moxon, 1843).

246 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

This beautiful testimony, to which the honest heart
responds, is from an age when humanity was less re-
garded than now. Plainly it shows how conduct and
character are realities, while other things are but acci-
dents.

Among the Eomans degradation ended with life.
Slaves were admitted to honorable sepulture, and some-
times slept the last sleep with their masters. The slaves
of Augustus and Li via were buried on the famous Ap-
pian Way, where their tombs with historic inscriptions
'have survived the centuries. 1 " Bury him with his nig-
gers," was the rude order of the Eebel officer, as he
flung the precious remains of our admirable Colonel
Shaw into the common trench at Fort Wagner, where
he fell, mounting the parapets at the head of colored
troops. And so was he buried, lovely in death as in
life. The intended insult became an honor. In that
common trench the young hero rests, symbolizing the
great Equality for which he died. No Roman monu-
ment, with its Siste, viator, to the passing traveller, no
" labor of an age in piled stones," can match in grandeur
that simple burial.

PREJUDICE OF COLOR.

MR. PRESIDENT, against these conclusions there is but
one argument, which, when considered, is nothing but a
prejudice, as little rational as what Shylock first calls
his "humor" and then "a lodged hate and a certain
loathing," making him seek the pound of flesh nearest
the merchant's heart. The prejudice of color pursues
its victim in the long pilgrimage from the cradle to the

1 Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, art. SEBVUS.

PREJUDICE OF COLOR 247

grave, barring the hotel, excluding from the public con-
veyance, insulting at the theatre, closing the school,
shutting the gates of science, and playing its fantastic
tricks even in the church where he kneels and the
grave where his dust mingles with the surrounding
earth. The God-given color of the African is a constant
offence to the disdainful white, who, like the pretentious
lord, asking Hotspur for prisoners, can bear nothing so
unhandsome " betwixt the wind and his nobility." This
is the whole case. And shall those Equal Rights prom-
ised by the great Declaration be sacrificed to a prejudice ?
Shall that Equality before the Law, which is the best
part of citizenship, be denied to those who do not hap-
pen to be white ? Is this a white man's government or
is it a government of " all men," as declared by our fa-
thers ? Is it a Republic of Equal Laws, or an Oligarchy
of the Skin ? This is the question now presented.

Once Slavery was justified by color, as now the de-
nial of Equal Rights is justified ; and the reason is as
little respectable in one case as in the other. The old
pretension is curiously illustrated by an incident in the
inimitable Autobiography of Franklin. An Ante-revolu-
tionary Governor of Pennsylvania remarked gayly, " that
he much admired the idea of Sancho Panza, who, when
it was proposed to give him a government, requested it
might be a government of Hacks, as then, if he could not
agree with his people, he might sell them " ; on which a
friend said, "Franklin, why do you continue to side
with those damned Quakers ? Had you not better sell
them?" Franklin answered, "The Governor has not
yet blacked them enough." The Autobiography proceeds
to record, that the Governor "labored hard to blacken
the Assembly in all his Messages, but they wiped off

248 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

liis coloring as fast as he laid it on, and placed it in
return thick upon his own face, so that, finding he was
likely to be ncgrofied himself, he grew tired of the con-
test and quitted the Government." l To negrofy a man
was to degrade him.

Thus in the ambition of Sancho Panza, and in the
story of the British governor, was color the badge of
Slavery. " Then I can sell them," said Sancho Panza ;
and the British governor repeated the saying. This is
changed now ; but not entirely. At present nobody
dares say, " I can sell them " ; but the inn, the common
conveyance, the theatre, the school, the scientific insti-
tute, the church, and the cemetery deny them the equal
rights of Freedom.

Color has its curiosities in history. For generations
the Koman circus was convulsed by factions known from
their liveries as white and red ; new factions adopted
green and blue ; and these latter colors raged with re-
doubled fury in the hippodrome of Constantinople. 2
Then came blacks and whites, Neri and Bianchi, in the
political contentions of Italy, 3 where the designation
was from the accident of a name. In England the
most beautiful of flowers, in two of its colors, became
the badge of hostile armies, and the white rose fought
against the red. But it has been reserved for our Ee-
public, dedicated to the rights of human nature, to adopt
the color of the skin as the sign of separation, and to or-
ganize it in law.

Color in the animal kingdom is according to the Law
of Nature. The ox of the Roman Campagna is gray.

1 Works, ed. Sparks, Vol. I. p. 180.

a Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Ch. XL.

* Sismondi, History of the Italian Republic, (London, 1832,) p. 115.

THE WORD "WHITE." 249

The herds on the banks of the Xanthus were yellow ; on
the banks of the Clitumnus they were white. In Cor-
sica animals are spotted. The various colors of the
human family belong to the same mystery. There are
white, yellow, red, and black, with intermediate shades ;
but no matter what their hue, they are always MEN,
gifted with a common manhood and entitled to common
rights. Dr. Johnson made short work with the famous
paradox of Berkeley, denying the existence of matter.
Striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone,
till he rebounded from it, "I refute it thus? he ex-
claimed. 1 And so, in reply to every pretension against
the equal rights of all, to every assertion of right found-
ed on the skin, to every denial of right because a man
is something else than white, I point to that common
manhood which knows no distinction of color, and thus
do I refute the whole inhuman, unchristian paradox.

THE WORD "WHITE."

OBSERVE, if you please, how little the word " white "
is authorized to play the great part it performs, and how
much of an intruder it is in all its appearances. In
those two title-deeds, the Declaration of Independence
and the Constitution, there are no words of color,
whether white, yellow, red, or black ; but here is the
fountain out of which all is derived. The Declara-
tion speaks of " all men," and not of " all white men " ;
and the Constitution says, " We the people," and not
" We the white people." Where, then, is authority for
any such discrimination, whether by the nation or any

1 Boswell's Life of Johnson, (London, 1835,) Vol. II. p. 263.

250 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL EIGHTS BILL.

component part ? There is no fountain or word for it.
The fountain failing, and the word non-existent, the
whole pretension is a disgusting usurpation, which is
more utterly irrational when it is considered that au-
thority for such an outrage can be found only in posi-
tive words, plain and unambiguous in meaning. This
was the rule with regard to Slavery, solemnly declared
by Lord Mansfield in the famous Somerset case ; and
it must be the same with regard to this pretension. It
cannot be invented, imagined, or implied ; it must be
found in the very text : and this I assert according to
fixed principles of jurisprudence. In its absence, Equal-
ity is " the supreme law of the land ; and the judges in
every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the con-
stitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwith-
standing." l

This conclusion is reinforced by the several Constitu-
tional Amendments ; but I prefer to dwell on the origi-
nal text of the Constitution, in presence of which you
might as well undertake to make a king as to degrade a
fellow-citizen on account of his skin.

There is also, antedating and interpreting the Consti-
tution, the original Common Law, which knew no dis-
tinction of color. One of the greatest judges that ever
sat in Westminster Hall, Lord Chief-Justice Holt, de-
clared, in sententious judgment, worthy of perpetual
memory, " The Common Law takes no notice of Negroes
being different from other men." 2 This was in 1706,
seventy years before the Declaration of Independence ;
so that it was well known to our fathers as part of that
Common Law, to which, according to the Continental

1 Constitution, Article VI.

a Smith v. Gould, 2 Lord Raymond, R. 1274.

THE WORD "WHITE." 251

Congress, the several States were entitled. 1 Had these
remarkable words been uttered by any other judge in
"Westminster Hall, they would have been important ; but
they are enhanced by the character of their illustrious
author, to whom belongs the kindred honor of first de-
claring from the bench that a slave cannot breathe in
England. 2

Among the ornaments of English law none has a
purer fame than Holt, who was emphatically a great
judge, being an example of learning and firmness, of
impartiality and mildness, with a constant instinct for
justice, and a rare capacity in upholding it. His emi-
nent merits compelled the admiration of his biographer,
Lord Campbell, who does not hesitate to say, that, " of
all the judges in our annals, Holt has gained the highest
reputation, merely by the exercise of judicial functions,"
and then again, in striking words, that " he may be
considered as having a genius for magistracy, as much
as our Milton had for poetry or our Wilkie for paint-
ing." 3 And this rarest magistrate tells us judicially,
that "the Common Law takes no notice of Negroes
being different from other men," in other words, it
makes no discrimination on account of color. This
judgment is a torch to illumine the Constitution, while
it shows how naturally our fathers in the great Declara-
tion said, " All men," and not " All white men," and in
the Constitution said, " We the people," and not " We
the white people."

In melancholy contrast with the monumental judg-

i Declaration of Rights, October 14, 1774: Journal of Congress, 1774-89,
( 1st edit.,) Vol. I. pp. 27-30.

8 Campbell, Lives of the Chief -Justices of England, (London, 1849,)
Vol. II. p. 138.

a Ibid., pp. 118, 135.

252 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

inent of the English Chief- Justice are judicial decisions
in our own country, especially that masterpiece of elab-
orate inhumanity, the judgment of our late Chief-Justice
in the Dred Scott case. But it is in the States that the
word "white" has been made prominent. Such learned
debate on the rights of man dependent on complexion
would excite a smile, if it did not awaken indignation.
There is Ohio, a much-honored State, rejoicing in pros-
perity, intelligence, and constant liberty ; but even this
eminent civilization has not saved its Supreme Court
from the subtilties of refinement on different shades of
human color. In the case of Lake v. Baker et al., 1
this learned tribunal decided that a child of Negro, In-
dian, and white blood, but of more than one-half white,
was entitled to the benefits of the common-school fund ;
yet in a later case the same court decided that " children
of three-eighths African and five-eighths white blood,
but who are distinctly colored, and generally treated and
regarded as colored children by the community where
they reside, are not, as of right, entitled to admission in-
to the common schools set apart for the instruction of
white youths." 2 Unhappy children ! Even five-eighths
white blood could not save them, if in their neighbor-
hood they were known as " colored." But this magic of
color showed itself yet more in the precedent of Polly
Gray v. The State of Ohio, a case of robbery, in the
Court of Common Pleas, where the prisoner appearing
on inspection " to be of a shade of color between the
mulatto and white," a Negro was admitted to testify
against her, and she was convicted ; but on grave con-
sideration by the Supreme Court, on appeal, it was de-

i 12 Ohio Rep., 237.

a Van Camp v. Board of Education of Logan: 9 Ohio State Rep., 406.

THE WORD "WHITE." 253

cided that the witness was wrongly admitted, and the
judgment was reversed; and the decision stands on
these words: "A Negro is not an admissible witness
against a quadroon on trial charged with a crime " ! l
Into this absurdity of injustice was an eminent tribu-
nal conducted by the ignis-fatuus of color.

These are specimens only. To what meanness of in-
quiry has not the judicial mind descended in the en-
forcement of an odious prejudice ? Such decisions are
a discredit to Republican Government ; and so also is
the existing practice of public institutions harmonizing
with them. The words of the Gospel are fulfilled, and
the Great Republic, " conceived in Liberty, and dedica-
ted to the proposition that all men are created equal," 2
becomes " like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed ap-
pear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's
bones and of all uncleanness." 3 Are not such decisions
worse than dead men's bones or any uncleanness ? All
this seems the more irrational, when we recall the Di-
vine example, and the admonition addressed to the
Prophet : " But the Lord said unto Samuel, Look not on
his countenance, .... for the Lord seeth not as man
seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance,
but the Lord looketh on the heart." * To the pretension
of looking at the skin and measuring its various pig-
ments in the determination of rights, I reply, that the
heart, and not the countenance, must be our guide. Not
on the skin can we look, though " white " as the coward
heart of Macbeth, according to the reproach of his wife,
but on that within, constituting character, which

i 4 Ohio Rep., 354.

8 Address of President Lincoln at Gettysburg : Ante, p. 378.

* Matthew, xxiii. 27.

* 1 Samuel, xvi. 7.

254 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL EIGHTS BILL.

showed itself supremely in Toussaint L'Ouverture, mak-
ing him, though black as night, a luminous example, and
is now manifest in a virtuous and patriotic people ask-
ing for their rights. Where justice prevails, all depends
on character. Nor can any shade of color be an apology
for interference with that consideration to which char-
acter is justly entitled.

Thus it stands. The word " white " found no place
in the original Common Law ; nor did it find any place
afterward in our two title-deeds of Constitutional Lib-
erty, each interpreting the other, and being the foun-
tain out of which are derived the rights and duties of
the American citizen. NOT, again, did it find place in
the Constitutional Amendment expressly defining a
" citizen." How, then, can it become a limitation upon
the citizen ? By what title can any one say, " I am a
white lord " ? Every statute and all legislation, whether
National or State, must be in complete conformity with
the two title-deeds. To these must they be brought as
to an unerring touchstone ; and it is the same with the
State as with the Nation. Strange indeed, if an odious
discrimination, without support in the original Common
Law or the Constitution, and openly condemned by the
Declaration of Independence, can escape judgment by
skulking within State lines ! "Wherever it shows itself,
whatever form it takes, it is the same barefaced and in-
sufferable imposture, a mere relic of Slavery, to be treat-
ed always with indignant contempt, and trampled out
as an unmitigated " humbug." The word may not be
juridical ; I should not use it if it were unparliamentary;
but I know no term which expresses so well the little
foundation for this pretension.

CITIZENSHIP. 255

CITIZENSHIP.

THAT this should continue to flaunt, now that Slavery
is condemned, increases the inconsistency. By the de-
cree against that wrong all semblance of apology was
removed. Ceasing to be a slave, the former victim has
become not only a man, but a Citizen, admitted alike
within the pale of humanity and within the pale of citi-
zenship. As man he is entitled to all the rights of man,
and as citizen he becomes a member of our common
household, with Equality as the prevailing law. No
longer an African, he is an American ; no longer a slave,
he is a common part of the Eepublic, owing to it patri-
otic allegiance in return for the protection of equal laws.
By incorporation with the body-politic he becomes a
partner in that transcendent unity, so that there can be
no injury to him without injury to all. Insult to him
is insult to an American citizen. Dishonor to him is
dishonor to the Eepublic itself. Whatever he may have
been, he is now the same as ourselves. Our rights are
his rights ; our equality is his equality ; our privileges
and immunities are his great freehold. To enjoy his
citizenship, people from afar, various in race and com-
plexion, seek our shores, losing here all distinctions of
birth, as into the ocean all rivers flow, losing all trace
of origin or color, and there is but one uniform expanse
of water, where each particle is like every other particle,
and all are subject to the same law. In this citizenship
the African is now absorbed.

Not only is he Citizen. There is no office in the Ee-
public, from lowest to highest, executive, judicial, or
representative, which is closed against him. The doors
of this Chamber swing open, and he sits here the co-

256 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

equal of any Senator. The doors of the other Chamber
also swing open. Nay, Sir, he may be Vice-President,
he may be President; but he cannot enter a hotel or
public conveyance, or offer his child at the common
school, without insult on account of color. Nothing can
make this terrible inconsistency more conspicuous. An
American citizen, with every office wide open to his
honorable ambition, in whom are all the great possibil-
ities of our Republic, who may be anything according
to merit, is exposed to a scourge which descends upon
the soul as the scourge of Slavery descended upon the
flesh.

In ancient times the cry, "I am a Roman citizen,"
stayed the scourge of the Lictor ; and this cry, with its
lesson of immunity, has resounded through the ages,
testifying to Roman greatness. Once it was on the lips
of Paul, as appears in the familiar narrative :

"And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the
centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man
that is a Roman, and uncondemned ?

" When the centurion heard that, he went and told the
chief captain, saying, Take heed what thou doest ; for this
man is a Koman.

"And the chief captain also was afraid, after he knew that
he was a Eoman, and because he had bound him." x

Will not our " Chief Captain," will not Senators, take
heed what they do, that the scourge may not continue
to fall upon a whole race, each one of whom is an Am-
erican and uncondemned ? Is our citizenship a feebler
safeguard than that of Rome ? Shall the cry, "I am an

1 Acts, xxii. 25, 26, 29.

EQUAL RIGHTS AND AMNESTY. 257

American citizen," be raised in vain against perpetual
outrage ?

In speaking of the citizen as of our household, I adopt
a distinction employed by a great teacher in Antiquity.
Aristotle, in counsels to his former pupil, Alexander, be-
fore his career of Asiatic conquest, enjoined a broad dis-
tinction between Greeks and Barbarians. The former
he was to treat as friends, and of the household; the
latter he was to treat as brutes and plants. 1 This is
the very distinction between Citizenship and Slavery.
The Citizen is of the national household; the Slave is no
better than brute or plant. But our brutes and plants
are all changed into men ; our Barbarians are trans-
formed into Greeks. There is no person among us now,
whatever his birth or complexion, who may not claim
the great name of Citizen, to be protected not less at
home than abroad, but always, whether at home or
abroad, by the National Government, which is the natu-
ral guardian of the citizen.

EQUAL RIGHTS AND AMNESTY.

MR. PRESIDENT, asking you to unite now in an act of
justice to a much-oppressed race, which is no payment
of that heavy debt accumulated by generations of wrong,
I am encouraged by the pending measure of Amnesty,
which has the advantage of being recommended in the
President's Annual Message. I regretted, at the time,
that the President signalized by his favor the removal
of disabilities imposed upon a few thousand Rebels who
had struck at the life of the Eepublic, while he said

1 Plutarch. De Alexandri Magni sive Fortuna sive Virtute, Orat. I. :
Moralia, e<l. Reiske, p. 302.
VOL. XIX. 17

258 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

nothing of cruel disabilities inflicted upon millions of
colored fellow-citizens, who had been a main-stay to the
national cause. But I took courage when I thought
that the generosity proposed could not fail to quicken
that sentiment of justice which I now invoke.

Toward those who assailed the Republic in war I
have never entertained any sentiment of personal hos-
tility. Never have I sought the punishment of any
one ; and I rejoice to know that our bloody Rebellion
closed without the sacrifice of a single human life by
the civil power. But this has not surprised me. Early
in the war I predicted it in this Chamber. 1 And yet,
while willing to be gentle with former enemies, while
anxious not to fail in any lenity or generosity, and
while always watching for the moment when all could
be restored to our common household with Equality as
the prevailing law, there was with me a constant duty,
which I could never forget, to fellow-citizens, white and
black, who had stood by the Republic ; and especially to
those large numbers, counted by the million, still suffer-
ing under disabilities having their origin in no crime,
and more keenly felt than any imposed upon Rebels.
Believing that duty to these millions is foremost, and
that until they are secured in equal rights we cannot
expect the tranquillity which all desire, nay, Sir, we
cannot expect the blessing of Almighty God upon our
labors, I bring forward this measure of justice to the
colored race. Such a measure can never be out of
order or out of season, being of urgent necessity and
unquestionable charity.

There are strong reasons why it should be united with

1 Speech in the Senate, May 19. 1862: Congressional Globe, 37th Cong.
2d Sess., pp. 2190, 2195; ante, VoL IX. pp. 27, 70.

EQUAL RIGHTS AND AMNESTY. 259

amnesty, especially since the latter is pressed. Each is
the removal of disabilities, and each is to operate largely
in the same region of country. Nobody sincerely favor-
ing generosity to Kebels should hesitate in justice to the
colored race. According to the maxim in Chancery,
" Whoso would have equity must do equity." Therefore
Eebels seeking amnesty must be just to colored fellow-
citizens seeking equal rights. Doing this equity, they
may expect equity.

Another reason is controlling. Each is a measure of
reconciliation, intended to close the issues of the war ;
but these issues are not closed, unless each is adopted.
Their adoption together is better for each, and therefore
better for the country, than any separate adoption.
Kindred in object, they should be joined together and
never put asunder. It is wrong to separate them.
Hereafter the Rebels should remember that their res-
toration was associated with the equal rights of all,
contained in the same great statute.

Clearly, between the two the preeminence must be
accorded to that for the equal rights of all, as among
the virtues justice is above generosity. And this is
the more evident, when it is considered, that, according
to Abraham Lincoln, the great issue of the war was
Human Equality.

In making the motion by which these two measures
are associated, I seize the first opportunity since the in-
troduction of my bill, nearly two years ago, of obtaining
for it the attention of the Senate. Beyond this is with
me a sentiment of duty. In the uncertainties of life,
I would not defer for a day the discharge of this im-
measurable obligation to fellow-citizens insulted and

260 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL EIGHTS BILL.

oppressed; nor would I postpone that much-desired
harmony which can be assured only through this act
of justice. The opportunity is of infinite value, and I
dare not neglect it. My chief regret is that I cannot
do more to impress it upon the Senate. I wish I were
stronger. I wish I were more able to exhibit the com-
manding duty. But I can try ; and should the attempt
fail, I am not without hope that it may be made in
some other form, with increased advantage from this
discussion. I trust it will not fail. Earnestly, confi-
dently, I appeal to the Senate for its votes. Let the
record be made at last, which shall be the cap-stone of
the reconstructed Eepublic.

I make this appeal for the sake of the Senate, which
will rejoice to be relieved from a painful discussion ; for
the sake of fellow- citizens whom I cannot forget ; and
for the sake of the Kepublic, now dishonored through a
denial of justice. I make it in the name of the Great
Declaration, and also of that Equality before the Law
which is the supreme rule of conduct, to the end espe-
cially that fellow-citizens may be vindicated in " the pur-
suit of happiness," according to the immortal promise,
and that the angel Education may not be driven from
their doors. I make it also for the sake of peace, so
that at last there shall be an end of Slavery, and the
rights of the citizen shall be everywhere under the equal
safeguard of national law. There is beauty in art, in
literature, in science, and in every triumph of intelli-
gence, all of which I covet for my country ; but there is
a higher beauty still in relieving the poor, in elevating
the down-trodden, and being a succor to the oppressed.
There is true grandeur in an example of justice, making
the rights of all the same as our own, and beating down

EQUAL RIGHTS AND AMNESTY. 261

prejudice, like Satan, under our feet. Humbly do I
pray that the Eepublic may not lose this great prize,
or postpone its enjoyment.

MB. VICKERS, of Maryland, on the same day, made an elaborate
effort on the position of the South and Amnesty, which he opened by
saying :

" It is not my purpose to follow the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr.
SUMNEB] in the remarks which he has made, because his amendment is not
only not germane to the subject-matter properly before the Senate, but is so
palpably unconstitutional that I consider it unnecessary to make any com-
ment upon it."

January 17th, Mr. Sumnef spoke again at length, introducing testi-
mony, being letters, resolutions, and addresses from various parts of the
country, and especially from the South, showing the necessity of Con-
gressional action for the protection of Equal Rights, and that such pro-
tection was earnestly desired by colored fellow-citizens.

At the close he remarked on the importance of equality in the school-
room.

ONE of the most important aspects of the pending
measure is its operation on the common school, making
it what is implied in its name, a school open to all. The
term "common" explains itself. Originally, in Eng-
land, under the law, it designated outlying land near a
village open to all the inhabitants; and the common
school is an institution of education open to all. If you
make it for a class, it is not a common school, but a sep-
arate schbol, and, as I have said frequently to-day, and
also before in addressing the Senate, a separate school
never can be a substitute for the common school. The
common school has for its badge Equality. The sepa-
rate school has for its badge Inequality. The one has
open doors for all ; the other has open doors only for
those of a certain color. That is contrary to the spirit
of our institutions, to the promises of the Declaration of

262 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

Independence, and to all that is secured in the recent
Constitutional Amendments. So long as it continues,
the great question of the war remains still undecided ;
for, as I explained the other day, that transcendent
issue, as stated by Jefferson Davis, and then again ac-
cepted by Abraham Lincoln, was Equality. Only by
maintaining Equality will you maintain the great vic-
tory of the war.

Here in Washington this very question of separate
schools has for some time agitated the community. The
colored people have themselves acted. They speak for
Equal Rights. I have in my hand a communication to
the Senate from the Secretary of the Interior, under date
of January 18, 1871, covering a report from the trustees
of the colored schools of Washington and Georgetown,
in which they make most important and excellent rec-
ommendations. How well at last the colored people
speak ! Who among us can speak better than they in
the passages I am about to read ?

After reading these passages, 1 which he pronounced "unanswered
and unanswerable," Mr. Sumner proceeded :

Sir, I bring this testimony to a close. I have ad-
duced letters, resolutions, addresses from various States,
showing the sentiments of the colored people. I have
adduced them in answer to allegations on this floor that
the pending measure of Equal Rights is not needed, that
the pending measure is for social equality. Listening to
these witnesses, you see how they all insist that it is
needed, and that it is in no respect for social equality.
It is a measure of strict legal right.

1 The first seven paragraphs under the head of " Need of Additional
Legislation": Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 20,
pp. 7, 8.

EQUAL EIGHTS AND AMNESTY. 263

I adduce this testimony also in answer to the allega-
tion, so loftily made in debate the other day, that the
colored people are willing to see the former Rebels am-
nestied, trusting in some indefinite future to obtain their
own rights. I said at the time that such an allegation
was irrational. I now show you that it is repudiated by
the colored people. They do not recognize the Senators
who have undertaken to speak for them as their repre-
sentatives. They insist upon their rights before you
play the generous to Rebels. They insist that they
shall be saved from indignity when they travel, and
when they offer a child at the common school, that
they shall be secured against any such outrage before
you remove the disabilities of men who struck at the
life of this Republic.

Now, Sir, will you not be just before you are gener-
ous ? Or if you do not place the rights of the colored
people foremost, will you not at least place them side
by side with those of former Rebels ? Put them both
where I seek now to put them, in the same statute,
so that hereafter the Rebels shall know that generosi-
ty to them was associated with justice to their colored
fellow-citizens, that they all have a common interest,
that they are linked together in the community of
a common citizenship, and in the enjoyment of those
liberties promised by the Declaration of Independ-
ence and guarantied by the Constitution of the United
States.

Mr. Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey, followed with remarks chiefly in.
criticism of the form of the bill, and made several suggestions of amend-
ment. Mr. Simmer stated that his object was "to get this measure in
the best shape possible," and that he should welcome any amendment
from any quarter ; that he did not feel as strongly as the Senator " the
difference between his language and the text," but that he was anxious

264 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

to harmonize with him. Mr. Sumner afterwards modified his bill in
pursuance of Mr. Frelinghuysen's suggestions.

The debate was continued on different days, Mr. Sawyer, of South
Carolina, Mr. Thurman, of Ohio, Mr. Morrill, of Maine, Mr. Saulsbury,
of Delaware, Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, speaking strongly against the
bill of Mr. Sumner. Mr. Sawyer objected to it as an amendment to
the Amnesty Bill. Mr. Nye of Nevada, and Mr. Flanagan of Texas
spoke for the bill. The latter, after saying that he had read the Con-
stitution for himself, and was " satisfied that the proposed amendment
was constitutional," added other reasons :

" One is, that I discover, that, if we should remain here, as we certainly
shall do, for a very considerable period, petitions will come in to such a de-
gree, requiring so much paper, that really the price will be vastly enhanced,
and it will thereby become a considerable tax to the Government of the
United States; for the Senator is receiving, I might almost say, volumes
I know not what the quantity is; it is immense, however from all parts
of the nation."

And then again :

"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 ad-
mirer. 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 impor-
tunity. 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 break^ter. 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 mak-
ing 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." *

Mr. Morrill, in an elaborate argument, denied point-blank the con-
stitutionality 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." 2

January 31st, Mr. Sumner replied to Mr. Morrill.

1 Congressional Globe, 42d Cong. 2d Sess., p. 587.
1 Ibid., Appendix, p. 4.

REPLY TO MR. MORRILL. 265

REPLY TO MR. MORRILL.

MR. PRESIDENT, before this debate closes, it seems to
me I shall be justified in a brief reply to the most ex-
traordinary, almost eccentric, argument by my excellent
friend, the Senator from Maine [Mr. MORRILL]. He
argued against the constitutionality of the pending
amendment, you all remember with how much in-
genuity and earnestness. I shall not follow him in the
details of that speech. I shall deal with it somewhat
in the general, and part of the time I shall allow others
to speak for me.

But before I come upon that branch of the case, I
feel that in justice to colored fellow-citizens I ought to
see that they have a hearing. Senators whom they
helped elect show no zeal for their rights. Sir, they
have a title to be heard. They are able ; they can speak
for themselves ; but they are not here to speak There-
fore they can be heard only through their communica-
tions. Here is one from a member of the Virginia
House of Delegates. It came to my hands yesterday,
and is dated " Kichmond, January 29, 1872." I wish
the Senate would hear what this member of the Virginia
House says on the pending amendment.

The letter, as read by Mr. Stunner, concluded as follows:

" We all, Sir, the whole colored population of Virginia, make this ap-
peal through yon to a generous Senate, and pray, for the sake of humanity,
justice, and all that is good and great, that equal common rights may be
bestowed on a grateful and loyal people before disabilities shall have been
stricken from those who struck at the very heart-strings of the Govern-
ment."

Can any Senator listen to that appeal and not feel
that this Virginian begins to answer the Senator from

266 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

Maine ? He shows an abuse ; he testifies to a grievance.
Sir, it is the beginning of the argument. My friend
seemed almost to ignore it. He did not see the abuse ;
he did not recognize the grievance.

MR. MORRILL. I certainly did see it, and I certainly re-
cognize it. The only difference between the Senator and my-
self, so far as the argument is concerned, is one simply of
power.

MR. SUMNER. I shall come to that. But first is the
point, whether the Senator recognizes the grievance ;
and here let me tell my excellent friend, that, did he see
the grievance as this colored citizen sees it, did he feel it
as this colored citizen feels it, Sir, did he simply see it
as I see it, he would find power enough in the Consti-
tution to apply the remedy. I know the generous heart
of the Senator ; and I know that he could not hesitate,
did he really see this great grievance. He does not see
it in its proportions. He does not see how in real char-
acter it is such that it can be dealt with only by the
National power. I drive that home to the Senator. It
is the beginning of the argument in reply to him, that
the grievance is such that it can be dealt with ade-
quately only by Congress. Any other mode is ineffi-
cient, inadequate, absurd. I begin, therefore, by placing
the Senator in that position. Unhappily he does not
see the grievance. He has no conception of its vast-
ness, extending everywhere, with ramifications in every
State, and requiring one uniform remedy, which, from the
nature of the case, can be supplied only by the Nation.

And now I come to the question of power ; and here
I allow a colored fellow-citizen to be heard in reply to
the Senator. I read from a letter of E. A. Fulton, of
Arkansas :

REPLY TO MR. MORRILL. 267

"I have seen and experienced much of the disabilities
which rest upon my race and people from the mere accident
of color. Grateful to God and the ^Republicans of this coun-
try for our emancipation and the recognition of our citizen-
ship, I am nevertheless deeply impressed with the necessity
of further legislation for the perfection of our rights as Amer-
ican citizens."

This colored citizen is impressed, as the Senator is
not, with the necessity of further legislation for the per-
fection of his rights as an American citizen. He goes
on:

" I am also thoroughly persuaded that this needed legisla-
tion should come from the National Congress."

So he replies to my Mend.

" Local or State legislation will necessarily be partial and
vacillating. Besides, our experience is to the effect that the
local State governments are unreliable for the enforcement or
execution of laws for this purpose.

" In Arkansas, for example, a statute was enacted by the
General Assembly of 1868 for the purpose of securing the
equal rights of colored persons upon steamboats, railroads,
and public thoroughfares generally. The provisions of the
statute were deemed good, if not entirely sufficient ; yet to
the present time gross indignities continue to be perpetrated
upon colored travellers, men and women, while those charged
under oath to see the laws faithfully executed look on with
seeming heartless indifference while the law remains a dead
letter on the statute-book.

"With a care and anxiety which one vitally interested
alone can feel I have examined and weighed this subject."

Here, Sir, he replies again to my friend. I should
like the Senator to notice the sentence:

268 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

"With a care and anxiety which one vitally interested
alone can feel " -

as, of course, ray friend cannot feel, since he has not
that vital interest

" I have examined and weighed this subject."
What does he conclude ?

" I am fully persuaded that nothing short of national leg-
islation, and national authority for its enforcement, will be
found sufficient for the maintenance of our God-given rights
as men and women, citizens of this great and free country."

MR. MORRILL. As my honorable friend emphasizes that
particular point, will he be kind enough to say whether he
reads that letter as an authority showing that Congress has
the power to do what he asks, or whether it is simply an in-
dividual opinion that some such legislation is necessary ?

MR. SUMNER. I think my friend must know that I
do not read the letter as an authority, according to his
use of the term. By-and-by I shall come to the au-
thority. I read it as the opinion of a colored citizen

MR. MORRILL. As to the necessity of legislation ?

MR, SUMNER. Who has felt the grievance, and testi-
fies that the remedy can only be through the Nation.
There is where he differs from my friend.

MR. MORRILL. It is not necessary to read evidence to me
that the colored people think there ought to be legislation by
Congress. The question between the Senator and myself i&
precisely this : What is your authority ?

REPLY TO MR. MORRILL. 269

MR. SUMNER. I am coming to that. This is only the
beginning.

MB. MORRILL. When you come to that, and make an
issue with me, I shall be ready to answer.

MR. SUMNER. I shall come to that in due season, and
give the Senator the opportunity he desires. I shall
speak to the question of power. Meanwhile I proceed
with the letter :

"I have read with joy your recently presented Supple-
mentary Civil Rights Bill. It meets my hearty approval.
In the name of God and down-trodden humanity, I pray you
press its enactment to a successful consummation.

" Such a law, firmly enforced, coupled with complete am-
nesty"

You see the point, Mr. President, "coupled with
complete amnesty"

" for political offences to those who once held us in bondage,
will furnish, as I believe, the only sound basis of reconstruc-
tion and reconciliation for the South."

Now my friend will not understand that I exaggerate
this letter. I do not adduce it as authority, but simply
as testimony, showing what an intelligent colored fel-
low-citizen thinks with regard to his rights on two im-
portant points much debated : first, as to the necessity
of remedy through the National Government; and,
secondly, as to the importance of uniting this assurance
of Equal Rights with Amnesty, so that the two shall go
together.

Before coming directly to the authority on which my
friend is so anxious, I call attention to another commu-
nication, from the President of the Georgia Civil Rights

270 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

Association, which I think should be read to the Senate.
It is addressed to me officially ; and if I do not read it,
the Senate will not have the benefit of it. There is no
Senator from Georgia to speak for the Civil Eights As-
sociation. I shall let them speak by their President,
Captain Edwin Belcher:

" I realize more and more, every day, the necessity of such
a measure of justice as your ' Supplementary Bill.' When
that becomes a law, the freedom of my race will then be
complete."

I call attention to that point. This writer regards
the pending measure essential to complete the Abolition
of Slavery ; and I hope you will not forget this judg-
ment, because it will be important at a later moment
in vindicating the constitutional power of Congress.
"When that becomes a law, the freedom of my race
will then be complete," not before, not till then, not
till the passage of the Supplementary Civil Eights Bill.
Down to that time Slavery still exists. Such, Sir, is
the statement of a man once a slave, and who knows
whereof he speaks; nor can it be doubted that he is
right.

After reading the letter at length, Mr. Sumner proceeded :

This instructive letter is full of wise warnings, to
which we cannot be indifferent. It is testimony, but it
is also argument.

The necessity of this measure appears not only from
Georgia, but even from Pennsylvania. I have in my
hands an article by Eichard T. Greener, the principal
of the Colored Institute at Philadelphia, where he vin-
dicates the pending bill. I read a brief passage, and

EEPLY TO ME. MOEEILL. 271

simply in reply to the Senator from Maine, on the ne-
cessity of Congressional action. Mr. Greener is no un-
worthy representative of his race. He knows well how
to vindicate their rights. Here is what he says :

" Not three weeks ago, the Committee which waited on
the President from this city, in behalf of Mr. Stimner's hill,
were refused accommodations at the depdt restaurant in "Wash-
ington, and only succeeded in being entertained by insisting*
upon just treatment. It has scarcely been three months since
the secretary of the Amp.rip.an legation at Port-au-Prince, Rev.
J. Theodore Holly, with his wife and three children, was re-
fused a state-room on the steamer running between New
Haven and New York city."

Then he shows the necessity :

" Should Minister Bassett himself, indorsed by the Union
League, return home and arrive late at night, there are prob-
ably not two hotels, such as a gentleman of his station would
wish to stop at, where he could be accommodated, not a the-
atre or place of amusement which he could visit without in-
sult or degrading restrictions, not a church, except it be a
Quaker or Catholic one, where he would not be shown into
the gallery, or else be made to feel uncomfortable : so out-
rageous are the current American ideas of common hospitality
and refinement ; so vindictive is this persecution of a humble
class of your fellow-citizens."

Lastly he vindicates the pending measure, and asks
for a two-thirds vote :

" The Supplementary Bill ought to pass by a two-thirds
vote. If it passes by a simple majority, we shall, of course,
be satisfied, and understand the reason why. If Republican
Senators, elected by colored votes, give their influence and
votes against this measure, it might be well for them to re-

272 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

member that Negroes, along with instinct, have 'terrible
memories.' "

And now, Sir, after these brief illustrations, where
our colored fellow-citizens have spoken for themselves,
showing the necessity of legislation by the Nation, be-
cause only through the Nation can the remedy be ap-
plied, I come to the precise argument of the Senator.
He asks for the power. Why, Sir, the National Consti-
tution is bountiful of power; it is overrunning with
power. Not in one place or two places or three places,
but almost everywhere, from the Preamble to the last
line of the latest Amendment ; in the original text and
in all our recent additions, again and again. Still fur-
ther, in that great rule of interpretation conquered at
Appomattox, which, far beyond the surrender of Lee, was
of infinite value to this Eepublic. I say a new rule of
interpretation for the National Constitution, according
to which, in every clause and every line and every
word, it is to be interpreted uniformly and thoroughly
for human rights. Before the Rebellion the rule was
precisely opposite. The Constitution was interpreted
always, in every clause and line and word, for Human
Slavery. Thank God, it is all changed now ! There is
another rule, and the National Constitution, from be-
ginning to end, speaks always for the Eights of Man.
That, Sir, is the new rule. That, Sir, is the great vic-
tory of the war; for in that are consummated all the
victories of many bloody fields, not one victory, or
two, but the whole, gleaming in those principles of
Liberty and Equality which are now the pivot jewels
of the Constitution.

My excellent friend from Maine takes no notice of
all this. He goes back for his rule to those unhappy

KEPLY TO MR. MORRILL. 273

days before the war. He makes the system of interpre-
tation, born of Slavery, his melancholy guide. With
such Mentor, how can he arrive at any conclusion other
than alien to Human Eights ? He questions every-
thing, denies everything. He finds no power for any-
thing, unless distinctly written in positive and precise
words. He cannot read between the lines ; he cannot
apply a generous principle which will coordinate every-
thing there in harmony with the Declaration of Inde-
pendence.

When I refer to the Declaration, I know well how
such an allusion is too often received on this floor. I
have lived through a period of history, and do not
forget that I here heard our great title-deed arraigned
as "a self-evident lie." There are Senators now, who,
while hesitating to adopt that vulgar extravagance of
dissent, are willing to trifle with it as a rule of interpre-
tation. I am not frightened. Sir, I insist that the Na-
tional Constitution must be interpreted by the National
Declaration. I insist that the Declaration is of equal
and coordinate authority with the Constitution itself.
I know, Sir, the ground on which I stand. I need no
volume of law, no dog-eared page, no cases to sustain me.
Every lawyer is familiar with the fundamental begin-
ning of the British Constitution in Magna Charta. But
what is Magna Charta ? Simple concessions wrung by
barons of England from an unwilling monarch ; not an
Act of Parliament, nothing constitutional in our sense
of the term ; simply a declaration of rights : and such
was the Declaration of Independence. And now, Sir,
I am prepared to insist, that, whenever you are consid-
ering the Constitution, so far as it concerns human
rights, you must bring it always to that great standard ;

VOL. XIX. 18

274 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

the two must go together; and the Constitution can
never be interpreted in any way inconsistent with the
Declaration. Show me any words in the Constitution
applicable to human rights, and I invoke at once the
great truths of the Declaration as the absolute guide to
their meaning. Is it a question of power ? Then must
every word in the Constitution be interpreted so that
Liberty and Equality shall not fail.

My excellent friend from Maine takes no notice of
this. He goes back to days when the Declaration was
denounced as " a self-evident lie," and the Constitution
was interpreted always in the interest of Slavery. Sir,
I object to this rule. I protest against it with all my
mind and heart and soul. I insist that just the oppo-
site must prevail, and I start with this assumption. I
shall not make a long argument, for the case does not
require it. I desire to be brief. You know the Amend-
ment :

"SECTION 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude,
except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have
been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or
auy place subject to their jurisdiction.

" SECTION 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this
article by appropriate legislation."

Here is an Amendment abolishing Slavery. Does it
abolish Slavery half, three-quarters, or wholly ? Here I
know no half, no three-quarters ; I know nothing but
the whole. And I say the article abolishes Slavery
entirely, everywhere throughout this land, root and
branch, in the general and the particular, in length
and breadth, and then in every detail. Am I wrong ?
Any other interpretation dwarfs the great Amendment,
and permits Slavery still to linger among us in some of

KEPLY TO ME. MOERILL. 275

its insufferable pretensions. Sir, I insist upon thorough
work. When I voted for that article, I meant what it
said, that Slavery should cease absolutely, entirely,
and completely. But, Sir, Congress has already given
its testimony to the true meaning of the article. Shortly
after its adoption, it passed what is known as the Civil
Rights Law, by which the courts of justice throughout
the country, State as well as National, are opened to
colored persons, who are authorized not only to sue and
be sued, but also to testify, an important right most
cruelly denied, even in many of the Northern States,
making the intervention of the Nation necessary, pre-
cisely as it is necessary now. That law was passed by
both Houses of Congress, vetoed by the President, and
passed then by a two-thirds vote over the veto of the
President, and all in pursuance of these words :

" Congress shall have power to enforce this article by ap-
propriate legislation."

Eemark, if you please, the energy of that expression ;
I have often had occasion to call attention to it. It is a
departure from the old language of the Constitution:

" The Congress shall have power to make all laws which
shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the
foregoing powers."

It is stronger, more energetic :
" Congress shall have power to enforce "
Mark, Sir, the vitality of the word
" to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

The whole field of apt legislation is open to be em-
ployed by Congress in enforcing Abolition. Congress

276 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL EIGHTS BILL.

entered upon that field and passed the original Civil
Rights Act And who among us now, unless one of my
friends on the other side of the Chamber, questions the
constitutionality of that Act ? Does any one ? Does
any one doubt it ? Does any one throw any suspicion
upon it? Would any one have it dropped from the
statute-book on any ground of doubt or hesitation ? If
there is any Senator in this category, I know him not.
I really should like to have him declare himself. I
will cheerfully yield the floor to any one willing to de-
clare his doubts of the constitutionality of the Civil
Rights Act. [After waiting a sufficient time.] Sir, there
is no Senator who doubts it.

Now, how can any Senator, recognizing the consti-
tutionality of the original Civil Rights Act, doubt the
present supplementary measure ? Each stands on the
same bottom. If you doubt one, you must doubt the
other. If you rally against that Amendment, your next
move should be to repeal the existing Civil Rights Act
as inconsistent with the Constitution. Why does not
my excellent friend from Maine bring forward his bill ?
Why does he not invite the Senate to commence the
work of destruction, to tear down that great remedial
statute ? Why is he silent ? Why does he hang back,
and direct all his energies against the supplementary
measure, which depends absolutely upon the same con-
stitutional power ? If he is in earnest against the pend-
ing motion, he must show the same earnestness against
the preliminary Act.

When I assert that Congress has ample power over
this question, I rely upon a well-known text often cited
in this Chamber, often cited in our courts, the judg-
ment of the Supreme Court pronounced by Chief-Justice

BEPLY TO MR. MORRILL. 277

Marshall, in the case of McCulloch v. State of Maryland,
from which I will read a brief extract :

"But the argument on which most reliance is placed is
drawn from the peculiar language of this clause. Congress
is not empowered hy it to make all laws which may have re-
lation to the powers conferred on the Government, but such
only as may be ' necessary and proper ' for carrying them into
execution. The word ' necessary ' is considered as controlling
the whole sentence, and as limiting the right to pass laws for
the execution of the granted powers to such as are indispen-
sable, and without which the power would be nugatory,
that it excludes the choice of means, and leaves to Congress
in each case that only which is most direct and simple."

These words show how the case was presented to the
Court. Here is the statement of John Marshall :

" We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the
Government are limited, and that its limits are not to be tran-
scended. But we think the sound construction of the Con-
stitution must allow to the National Legislature that discre-
tion with respect to the means by which the powers it confers
are to be carried into execution which will enable that body
to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most
beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be
within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are
appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are
not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Con-
stitution, are constitutional" 1

In other words, the Supreme Court will not undertake
to sit in judgment on the means employed by Congress
for carrying out a power which exists in the Constitu-
tion. Now the power plainly exists in the Constitution ;

i 4 Wheaton, R., pp. 413, 421.

278 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

it is to abolish Slavery, and it is for Congress in its dis-
cretion to select the means. Already it has selected the
Civil Rights Law as the first means for enforcing the ab-
olition of Slavery. I ask it to select the supplement-
ary bill now pending as other means to enforce that
abolition. One of the letters that I have read to-day
from a leading colored citizen of Georgia said : " When
that becomes a law, the freedom of my race will then be
complete." It is not complete until then ; and there-
fore, in securing that freedom, in other words in enforc-
ing the Constitutional Amendment, Congress is author-
ized to pass the bill which I have felt it my duty to in-
troduce, and which is now moved on the Amnesty Bill.

I might proceed with this argument. But details
would take time, and I think they are entirely needless.
The case is too strong. It needs no further argument.
You have the positive grant of power. You have al-
ready one instance of its execution, and you have the
solemn decision of the Supreme Court of the United
States declaring that it is in the discretion of Congress
to select the means by which to enforce the powers
granted. How, Sir, can you answer this conclusion ?
How can my excellent friend answer it ?

Were I not profoundly convinced that the conclusion
founded on the Thirteenth Amendment was unanswer-
able, so as to make further discussion surplusage, I
should take up the Fourteenth Amendment, and show
how, in the first place, we have there the definition of a
Citizen of the United States, and then, in the second
place, an inhibition upon the States, so that they cannot
make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privi-
leges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor
deny to any person within the jurisdiction of the United

REPLY TO MR. MORRILL. 279

States the equal protection of the laws. And here again
Congress is empowered to enforce these provisions by
appropriate legislation. Surely, if there were any doubt
in the Thirteenth Amendment, as there is not, it would
all be removed by this supplementary Amendment.
Here is the definition of Citizenship, and the right to
the equal protection of the laws, in other words, Citi-
zenship and Equality, both placed under the safeguard
of the Nation. Whatever will fortify these is within
the power of Congress by express grant. But if these
are interpreted by the Declaration of Independence, as
I insist, the conclusion is still more irresistible.

Add the original text of the Constitution, declaring
that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all
privileges and immunities of citizens in the several
States." These words, already expounded by judicial
interpretation, 1 are now elevated and inspired by the
new spirit breathing into them the breath of a new life,
.and making them yet another source of Congressional
power for the safeguard of equal rights.

But I have not done with my friend. I am going
to hand him over to be answered by one of his colored
fellow-citizens who has no privilege on this floor. I put
George T. Downing face to face with my excellent friend,
the Senator from Maine. The Senator will find his
argument in one of the papers of the day. I shall read
enough to show that he understands the question, even
constitutionally :

"But I come directly," says he, "to 'misconception,' to
thwarting justice. The Senator "

Eeferring to the Senator from Maine

i See, ante, p. 234.

280 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

" opposes Senator Sumner's amendment ; he says it invokes
an implication of some principle or provision of the Constitu-
tion somewhere, or an implication arising from the general
fitness of things possibly, to enable it to invade the domicili-
ary rights of the citizens of a State."

These were the precise words of the Senator ; I re-
member them well ; I was astonished at them. I could
not understand by what delusion, hallucination, or spe-
cial igwls-fatuus the Senator was led into the idea that
in this bill there is any suggestion of invading the domi-
ciliary rights of the citizens of the States. Why, Sir,
the Senator has misread the bill. I will not say he has
not read it. He certainly has misread it. And now let
our colored fellow- citizen answer him :

" I do not speak unadvisedly, when I declare that no such
end is desired by a single intelligent colored man ; no such
design can be gleaned from any word ever spoken by Charles
Sumner ; his amendment cannot by any reasonable stretch of
the imagination be open to the implication."

Not a Senator, not a lawyer says that ; it is only one
of our colored fellow-citizens whom the Senator would
see shut out of the cars, shut out of the hotels, his chil-
dren shut ont from schools, and himself shut out from
churches; and seeing these things, the Senator would do
nothing, because Congress is powerless ! Our colored
fellow-citizen proceeds :

" The amendment says that all citizens, white and black,
are entitled to the equal and impartial enjoyment of any ac-
commodation, advantage, facility, or privilege furnished by
common carriers, by inn-keepers, by licensed theatres, by man-
agers of common schools supported by general taxation or au-
thorized by law. Does any of the same invade the domicili-
ary rights of a citizen in any State ? "

REPLY TO MR. MORRILL. 281

That is not my language, Sir ; it is Mr. Downing's.

" Could any man, white or black, claim a right of entrance
into the domicile of the poorest, the humblest, the weakest
citizen of the State of Maine by virtue of Mr. Sumner's
amendment, when it shall become a law ? Certainly not ; a
man's private domicile is his own castle : no one, with even
kingly pretensions, dare force himself over its threshold. But
the public inn, the public or common school, the public place
of amusement, as well as common carriers, asking the special
protection of law, created through its action on the plea and
for the benefit of the public good, have no such exclusive
right as the citizen may rightfully claim within his home ;
and it seems to me to be invoking the aid of an unholy pre-
judice in attempting to force the idea that Mr. Sumner desires,
or that the colored people in petitioning for civil rights are
designing, to break into social circles against the wish of those
who compose them."

It is difficult to answer that. The writer proceeds :

" I have the testimony of Senator Morrill, this same Sena-
tor, to the fact ' that equality before the law, without distinc-
tion of race or color,' is a constitutional right, for we have
his declaration to that effect recorded, and further setting
forth that it is ' the duty of the Circuit Court of the United
States to afford a speedy and convenient means for the arrest
and examination of persons charged with a disregard of the
same.' (See proceedings of Senate, April, 1866.) "

I have not verified this reference ; I read it as I find
it. The Senator will know whether he has heretofore
employed such generous language, in just conformity
with the Constitution. Assuming now that he has used
this language, I think, as a lawyer, he will feel that
George T. Downing has the better of him. I ask my
friend to listen, and perhaps he will confess :

282 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

" If equality before the law be a constitutional right, as
testified to by Mr. Morrill, and if it be the duty of the Fed-
eral courts to protect the same, as he further affirms, is not
all conceded as to the right of Congress to act in the case in
question, when it is shown that the public inn, the public
school, the common carrier, are necessary institutions under
the control of law, where equality without regard to race
or color may be enforced? Can there be any question as
to the same?

" I further invoke the letter of the Constitution in behalf
of Congressional action to protect me in the rights of an Am-
erican citizen ; for instance,"

Again I say, this is not the argument of a Senator,
nor of a lawyer, but only of one of those colored fellow-
citizens for whom my friend can find no protection,

" for instance, that article which says, ' The judicial power
shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this
Constitution.' If equality before the law be, as Mr. Morrill
has declared, a constitutional right, the judicial power of the
United States reaches the same. Another section says, ' The
citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and
immunities of citizens in the several States.'"

The writer is not content with one clause of the
Constitution :

" Another section says, ' No State shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States.' Another section says, ' The
United States shall guaranty to every State in this Union a
republican form of government.' The section last cited con-
templates a case where a controlling power shall strive to
have it otherwise, and the subordinated individuals need pro-
tection. Congress is left the judge of what constitutes a re-

REPLY TO MB. MORRILL. 283

publican form of government, and consequently of the rights
incidental thereto."

Then again :

"Another section says, ' This Constitution, and the laws of
the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof,
shall be the supreme law of the land.' Another section says,
' The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall
be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the pow-
ers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the
United States.' Will it be said that the power is not vested
in the "Government of the United States to protect the rights
of its citizens, and that it is not necessary and proper to
do sol"

" The Senator admits that there is a constitutional inhibi-
tion against proscribing men because of their race or color in
the enjoyment of rights and privileges, but he denies the ex-
istence of a constitutional right on the part of Congress to act
in defence of the supreme law, when a State may disregard
the Constitution in this respect. I read the Constitution
otherwise. I conclude, that, when the supreme law says of
right a thing shall not be, Congress, which has that supreme
law as its guide and authority, has the power to enforce the
same."

That, Sir, is the reply of a colored fellow-citizen to
the speech of my excellent friend. I ask Senators to
sit in judgment between the speech and the reply. I
ask if my excellent friend is not completely answered
by George T. Downing ? If the latter has been able to
do this, it is because of the innate strength of his own
cause and the weakness of that espoused by the Sena-
tor. Our colored commentator places himself on the
texts of the Constitution, and interprets them liberal-
ly, justly, for the equal rights of his race. The Senator

284 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

places himself on those same texts, but in an evil
moment surrenders to that malignant interpretation
which prevailed before the war and helped to precip-
itate the Rebellion.

Sir, I ask, Is not the constitutionality of this measure
vindicated ? Does any one really doubt its constitu-
tionality ? Can any one show a reason against it ? Sir,
it is as constitutional as the Constitution itself. You
may arraign that great charter; you may call it in
doubt; you may say that it is imperfect, that it is
wrong ; but I thank God it exists to be our guide and
master, so that even my excellent friend, the able and
ingenious Senator, snatching reasons, if not inspiration,
from ante bcllum arguments, when State Rights were the
constant cry, and from speeches in other days, cannot
overturn it. The Constitution still lives, and as long as
it lives it must be interpreted by the Declaration of
Independence to advance human rights.

This is my answer to the Senator on the question of
power, to which he invited attention. I have spoken
frankly, I hope not unkindly : but on this question I
must be plain and open. Nor is this all.

Sir, there is a new force in our country. I have al-
luded to a new rule of interpretation ; I allude now to a
new force : it is the colored people of the United States
counted by the million; a new force with votes; and
they now insist upon their rights. They appear be-
fore you in innumerable petitions, in communications,
in letters, all praying for their rights. They appeal to
you in the name of the Constitution, which is for them
a safeguard, in the name of that great victoiy over
the Rebellion through which peace was sealed ; and
they remind you that they mean to follow up their ap-

REPLY TO MR. MORRILL. 285

peal at the ballot-box. I have here an article in the
last "New National Era," of Washington, a journal
edited by colored persons, Frederick Douglass is the
chief editor, and devoted to the present Administra-
tion. What does it say ?

" Here, then, is a measure, just and necessary, the embod-
iment of the very principles upon which the Government is
founded, and which distinguish it from monarchical and aris-
tocratic Governments, a measure upon which there should
be no division in the Republican Party in Congress, and of
which there is no question as to its being of more importance
than Amnesty. Without this measure Amnesty will be a
crime, merciless to the loyal blacks of the South, and an en-
couragement of treason and traitors. We have met colored
politicians from the South who think that the Amnesty prop-
osition is an attempt to gain the good-will of the white voters
of the South at the expense of the colored voters. Should
this feeling become general among the colored people, there is
danger of a division of the colored vote to such an extent as
to defeat the Republican Party. Give us the just measure of
protection of our civil rights before the pardoning of those
who deny us our rights and who would destroy the nation,
and the colored people can feel assured that they are not to
be forced into a back seat, and that traitors are not to be
exalted."

Is not this natural ? If you, Sir, were a colored citi-
zen, would you not also thus write ? Would you not
insist that you must doubt any political party, pretend-
ing to be your friend, that failed in this great exigency ?
I know you would. I know you would take your vote
in your hand and insist upon using it so as to secure
your own rights.

The testimony accumulates. Here is another letter,

286 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

which came this morning, signed, "An Enfranchised
[Republican," dated at Washington, and published in the
" New York Tribune." It is entitled, " President Grant
and the Colored People." The writer avows himself in
favor of the renomination of General Grant, but does
not disguise his anxiety at what he calls "the Presi-
dent's unfortunate reply to the colored delegation which
lately waited on him."

Now, Sir, in this sketch you see a slight portraiture of
a new force in the land, a political force which may
change the balance at any election, at a State elec-
tion, at a Presidential election even. Take, for instance,
Pennsylvania. There are colored voters in that State
far more than enough to turn the scale one way or the
other, as they incline ; and those voters, by solemn peti-
tion, appeal to you for their rights. The Senator from
Maine rises in his place and gravely tells them that
they are all mistaken, that Congress has no power to
give them a remedy, and he deals out for their com-
fort an ancient speech.

Sir, I trust Congress will find that it has the power.
One thing I know : if it has the power to amnesty
Rebels, it has the power to enfranchise colored fellow-
citizens. The latter is much clearer than the former.
I do not question the former; but I say to my excel-
lent friend from Maine that the power to remove the
disabilities of colored fellow-citizens is, if possible,
stronger, clearer, and more assured than the other.
Unquestionably it is a power of higher necessity and
dignity. The power to do justice leaps forth from
every clause of the Constitution ; it springs from every
word of its text ; it is the inspiration of its whole char-
tered being.

REPLY TO MR. MORRILL. 287

Mr. President, I did not intend to say so much. I
rose to-day merely to enable the absent to speak, that
colored fellow-citizens, whose own Senators had failed
them, might be heard through their written word. I did
not intend to add anything of my own ; but the subject
is to me of such incalculable interest, and its right set-
tlement is so essential to the peace of this country, to
its good name, to the reconciliation we all seek, that I
could not resist the temptation of making this further
appeal

February 1st, Mr. Carpenter, of Wisconsin, in an elaborate speech,
replied to Mr. Sumner, and criticized his bill, especially so far as it
secured equal rights in churches and juries.

February 5th, in pursuance of the opposition announced in his
speech, Mr. Carpenter moved another bill as a substitute for Mr. Sum-
ner's. Mr. Norwood, of Georgia, sustained the substitute ; Mr. Wil-
son of Massachusetts, Mr. Frelinghuysen of New Jersey, and Mr.
Morton of Indiana predicated the earlier proposition. Mr. Sumner
then replied to Mr. Carpenter.

BEFORE the vote is taken, I hope the Senate will par-
don me, if I explain briefly the difference between the
two amendments.

First let me say a word in regard to the way in which
the amendment moved by me comes before the Senate.
Even this circumstance has been dwelt on in this de-
bate, and I have been criticized I think not always
justly on that account. Here is a memorandum
made for me at the desk from the Journal of the Sen-
ate, which shows the history of this amendment. I
will read it. 1

At last, during this session, before the holidays, when
the present measure of Amnesty was under considera-

1 For this history, see Introduction, ante. p. 205.

288 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL EIGHTS BILL.

tion, I found for the first time a chance. Twice had I
introduced the bill, and on my motion it was referred
to the Judiciary Committee, who had twice reported
against it. Sir, was I to be discouraged on that ac-
count ? No committee enjoys higher authority on this
floor than the Judiciary Committee ; but I have been
here long enough to know that its reports do not always
find favor. Have we not during this very session, with-
in a very few days, seen that committee overruled on
the Apportionment question?

REPLY TO MR. CARPENTER.

THEREFORE, Sir, I am not without precedent, when I
bring forward an important measure and ask your votes,
even though it have not the sanction of this important
committee. I wish it had their sanction ; but I do not
hesitate to say that this bill is more important to the
Judiciary Committee than that committee is important
to the bill. In this matter the committee will suffer
most. A measure like this, which links with the Na-
tional Constitution, and with the Declaration of Inde-
pendence, if the Senator from Wisconsin will pardon
me

MR. CARPENTER. I rise to ask why that inquiry is made
of me. Have I criticized allusions to the Declaration of In-
dependence 1

MR. SUMNER. I feared the Senator would not allow
allusion to the Declaration, except as a " revolutionary "
document. I say, this measure, linked as it is with the
great title-deeds of our country, merits the support not
only of the Judiciary Committee, but of this Chamber.
The Senate cannot afford to reject it.

KEPLY TO ME. CAEPENTEK. 289

Sir, I am weak and humble ; but I know that when
I present this measure and plead for its adoption I am
strong, because I have behind me infinite justice and
the wrongs of an oppressed race. The measure is not
hasty. It has been carefully considered already in this
Chamber, much considered elsewhere, considered by
lawyers, by politicians, ay, Sir, and considered by
our colored fellow-citizens, whose rights it vindicates.
But at the eleventh hour the Senator comes forward
with a substitute which is to a certain extent an emas-
culated synonym of the original measure, seeming to
be like and yet not like, feeble where the original is
strong, incomplete where the original is complete, petty
whore the original is ample, and without machinery for
its enforcement, while the original is well-supplied and
most effective.

That you may understand the amendment introduced
by me, I call attention to the original Civil Eights Act,
out of which it grows and to which it is a supplement.
That great statute was passed April 9, 1866, and is en-
titled, "An Act to protect all persons in the United
States in their civil rights, and to furnish the means of
their vindication." 1 It begins by declaring who are
citizens of the United States, and then proceeds :

" Such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to
any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude,
except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have
been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State
and Territory in the United States,"

To do what ?

" to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give
evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey

1 Statutes at Large, VoL XIV. pp. 27-29.
VOL. xix. 19

290 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all
Liws and proceedings for the security of person and property,
as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like
punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law,
statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary not-
withstanding."

The Senate will perceive that this Act operates not
only in the National but in the State jurisdiction. No
person will question that. It operates in every Na-
tional court and in every State court. The language is,
" in every State and Territory in the United States."
Every State court is opened. Persons without distinc-
tion of color are entitled to sue and be sued, especially
to be heard as witnesses, and the colored man may hold
up his hand as the white man

Now I ask the Senator from Wisconsin to consider
what is the difference in character between the right to
testify and the right to sit on a jury.

MR. CARPENTER. Or on the bench.

MR. SUMNER. The Senator will allow me to put the
question in my own way. I say nothing about the
bench, and the Senator is too good a lawyer not to see
why. He knows well the history of trial by jury ; he
knows that at the beginning jurors were witnesses from
the neighborhood, afterward becoming judges, not of
law, but of fact. They were originally witnesses from
the vicinage ; so that, if you go back to the very cradle
of our jurisprudence, you find jurors nothing but wit-
nesses: and now I insist that they must come under
the same rule as witnesses. If the courts are opened to
colored witnesses, I insist by the same title they must
be opened to colored jurors. Call the right political or

REPLY TO MR. CARPENTER. 291

civil, according to the distinction of the Senator. No
matter. The right to be a juror is identical in charac-
ter with the right to be a witness. I know not if it be
political or civil ; it is enough for me that it is a right
to be guarded by the Nation, I say nothing about
judges; for the distinction is obvious between the two
cases. I speak now of colored jurors; and I submit,
as beyond all question, that every reason or argument
which opens the courts to colored witnesses must open
them to colored jurors. The two go together, as natural
yoke-fellows.

But do not, Sir, forget the necessity of the case. How
can justice be administered throughout States throng-
ing with colored fellow-citizens, unless you have them
on the juries ? Denying to colored fellow-citizens their
place on the juries, you actually deny them justice.
This is plain, and presents a case of startling wrong. I
am in the receipt of letters almost daily, complaining
of the impossibility of obtaining justice in State courts
because colored fellow-citizens are excluded from juries.
I say, therefore, from the necessity of the case, and also
from the analogy of witnesses, the courts should be
opened to colored jurors. The Senator makes a mistake,
when he deals his blow in the very Temple of Justice.
He strikes down the safeguards of justice for the whole
colored race ; and what is the excuse ? That to sit on
the jury is a question of politics, that it is a political
right, and not a civil right. Sir, I cannot bring myself
to make any question whether it is a civil right or a po-
litical right ; it is a right. It is a right which those
men have by the Law of Nature, and by the National
Constitution interpreted by the National Declaration.

But, Sir, not content with striking at the colored race

292 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

even in the very Temple of Justice, the Senator, finding
an apology in the Constitution, insists upon the very ex-
clusion from churches which the famous Petroleum V.
Nasby had set up before. From juries I now come to
churches. The Senator is not original; he copies, as
I shall show, from a typical Democrat, who nourished
during the war. But before I come to his prototype,
let us consider the constitutional question presented by
the Senator with so much gravity, without even the
smile that plays so readily on his countenance. He
seemed in earnest, when he read these words of the
National Constitution:

" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

And still without a smile he argued that the applica-
tion of the great political principles of the Declaration
and of the recent Constitutional Amendments to a
church organization incorporated by law was a violation
of this provision, and he adduced the work of the much-
venerated friend of iny early life, and my master, the
late Judge Story, expounding that provision. I do not
know if the Senator read these words from the commen-
tary of that great jurist :

" The real object of the Amendment was not to counte-
nance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism,
or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all
rivalry among Christian sects,"

Observe, Sir, what it is,

" but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to pre-
vent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should

REPLY TO MR. CARPENTER. 293

give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the National
Government." l

How plain and simple ! The real object was to ex-
clude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent
any national ecclesiastical establishment. Such was the
real object.

But the Senator says, if Congress decrees that the
Declaration of Independence in its fundamental princi-
ples is applicable to a church organization incorporated
by State or National authority, we violate this provision
of the Constitution ! You heard him, Sir ; I do no in-
justice to his argument.

Our authority, Judge Story, continues in another
place :

" It was under a solemn consciousness of the dangers from
ecclesiastical ambition, the bigotry of spiritual pride, and the
intolerance of sects, thus exemplified in our domestic as well
as in foreign annals, that it was deemed advisable to exclude
from the National Government all power to act upon the
subject." 2

To act upon what ? The subject of a religious estab-
lishment. No pretence here of denying to Congress the
establishment of police regulations, if you please, or the
enforcement by law of the fundamental principles of the
Declaration of Independence. There is nothing in this
text inconsistent with such a law. The Constitution
forbids all interference with religion. It does not forbid
all effort to carry out the primal principles of republican
institutions. Now, Sir, here is no interference with re-
ligion. I challenge the Senator to show it. There is

1 Commentaries on the Constitution, (2d edit.,) 1877.
Ibii, 1879.

294 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

simply the assertion of a political rule, or, if you please,
a rule of political conduct. Why, Sir, suppose the man-
ners and morals which prevailed among the clergy of
Virginia during the early life of Mr. Jefferson, and re-
cently revealed by the vivid pen of one of our best wri-
ters, should find a home in the churches of Washington.
You have read Mr. Parton's account in a late number of
the "Atlantic Monthly." 1 Suppose Congress, taking in-
to consideration the peculiar circumstances, should give
expression to public sentiment and impose a penalty
for such scandalous conduct here under our very eyes ;
would that be setting up an Established Church ? Would
that be a violation of the National Constitution, in the
provision which the Senator invokes, "Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion " ?
And yet, in the case I suppose, Congress would enter
the churches ; it might be only in the District of Co-
lumbia ; but the case shows how untenable is the posi-
tion of the Senator, according to which the effort of
Congress to preserve churches from the desecration of
intemperance would be kindred to setting up an estab-
lished religion. There is a desecration as bad as intem-
perance, which I now oppose. I introduce the case of
intemperance only as an illustration.

And now, Sir, I come to the question. Suppose Con-
gress declares that no person shall be excluded from any
church on account of race, color, or previous condition ;
where is the interference with the constitutional provis-
ion ? Is that setting up a church establishment ? Oh,
no, Sir ! It is simply setting up the Declaration of In-
dependence in its primal truths, and applying them to
churches as to other institutions.

1 See No. for February, 1872, Vol. XXIX. pp. 189-191. Also, Parton's
Life of Jefferson, pp. 55 - 58.

REPLY TO MR. CARPENTER. 295

MR. CARPENTER. Will my friend allow me, not for the
purpose of interrupting him, but to come to the point] Sup-
pose Congress should pass a law that in no church in this
country should the Host be exalted during divine service.

MR. SUMNER. The Senator knows well the difference.
This is a religious observance.

Congress cannot interfere with any religious observ-
ance. Congress can do nothing to set up a religious es-
tablishment. It can make no law respecting an estab-
lishment of religion. But the Senator must see that in
the case he puts, the proposed law would be the very
thing prohibited by the Constitution. I thank him for
that instance. I propose no interference with any re-
ligious observance, not in the least : far from it.

Sir, the case is clear as day. All that I ask is, that, in
harmony with the Declaration of Independence, there
be complete equality before the law everywhere, in
the inn, on the highway, in the common school, in the
church, on juries, ay, Sir, and in the last resting-place
on earth. The Senator steps forward and says : No,
I cannot accept equality in the church. There the
Constitutional Amendments interpreted by the Declara-
tion are powerless ; there a White Man's Government
shall prevail. A church organization may be incor-
porated by National or State authority, and yet allowed
to insult brothers of the human family on account of the
skin. In the church this outrage may be perpetrated,
because to forbid it would interfere with religion and
set up an establishment.

Such, Sir, is the argument of the Senator; and he
makes it in the name of Keligious Liberty ! Good God,
Sir ! Religious liberty ! The liberty to insult a fellow-
man on account of his skin ! You listened to his elo-

296 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

quent, fervid appeal I felt its eloquence, but regretted
that such power was employed in such a cause.

I said, that, consciously or unconsciously, he had cop-
ied Petroleum V. Nasby, in the letter of that renowned
character entitled, "Goes on with his Church," from
which I read a brief passage :

"CHURCH OF ST. VALLANDIGUM,
"June the 10th, 1863.

"We bed a blessid and improvin time yisterday. My
little flock staggered in at the usual hour in the mornin, every
man in a heavenly frame uv mind, hevin bin ingaged all
nite in a work uv mercy, to wit : a mobbin uv two enrollin
officers. One uv em resisted, and they smote him hip and
thigh, even ez Bohash smote Jabeel. (Skriptooral, wich is
nessary, bein in the ministry.) He wuz left for dead.

" We opened servis by singin a hym, wich I writ, com-
mencin ez follows :

" Shel niggers black this land possess,

And mix with us up here ?
0, no, my friends ; we rayther guess
We '11 never stand that 'ere." 1

\Laughicr. ~\

I ask if that is not the Senator's speech ? [Laughter.]
I know not whether it is necessary for me to go further.
Something more, I might say. Very well, I will ; the
Senator rather invites me.

The Senator becomes here the representative of Caste ;
and where, Sir ? In a Christian church ; and while es-
pousing that cause, he pleads the National Constitution.
Now, Sir, I have to repeat and here I am determined
not to be misunderstood we have no right to enter the

1 The Struggles, (Social, Financial, and Political,) of Petroleum V. Nasby,
p. 71.

REPLY TO MR. CABPENTER. 297

church and interfere in any way with its religious ordi-
nances, as with the raising of the Host; but when a
church organization asks the benefit of the law by an act
of incorporation, it must submit to the great primal law
of the Union, the Constitution of the United States,
interpreted by the Declaration of Independence. The
Senator smiles again ; I shall come to that by-and-by.
Whenever a church organization seeks incorporation, it
must submit to the great political law of the land. It
can have the aid it seeks only by submitting to this
political law. Here is nothing of religion ; it is the po-
litical law, the law of justice, the law of Equal Rights.
The Senator says, No ; they may do as they please in
churches, because they are churches, because they are
homes of religion, of Christianity; there they may in-
sult on account of the skin. I call that a vindication
of Caste, and Caste in one of its most offensive forms.
You all know, Sir, the history of Caste. It is the dis-
tinction of which we first have conspicuous record in the
East, though it has prevailed more or less in all coun-
tries ; but it is in the ^East that it showed itself in such
forms as to constitute the type by which we describe
the abuse. It is an offensive difference between persons
founded on birth, not unlike that maintained among us
on account of a skin received from birth.

And now pardon me, if I call attention to the way in
which this discrimination has been characterized by the
most eminent persons familiar with it. I begin with
the words of an estimable character known in religion
and also in poetry, Bishop Heber, of Calcutta, who
pictured Caste in these forcible terms :

"A system which tends, more than anything else the Devil
has yet invented, to destroy the feelings of general benevo-

298 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

lenco, and to make nine-tenths of mankind the hopeless slaves
of the remainder." 1

Then comes the testimony of Kev. Mr. Rhenius, a
zealous and successful missionary in the East:

" I have found Caste, both in theory and practice, to be
diametrically opposed to the Gospel, which inculcates love, hu-
mility, and union ; whereas Caste teaches the contrary. It
is a fact, in those entire congregations where Caste is allowed,
the spirit of the Gospel does not enter ; whereas in those from
which it is excluded we see the fruits of the Gospel spirit."

MR. CARPENTER. Will the Senator allow me to interrupt
him to ask whether these commentaries are read ,for the pur-
pose of construing the Constitution of the United States?
That is the only point of difference between us.

MR. SUMNER. The Senator will learn before I am
through. I shall apply them.

After quoting other authorities, Mr. Sumner proceeded:

These witnesses are strong and unimpeachable. In
Caste, Government is nurturing a tremendous evil,
a noxious plant, by the side of which the Graces can-
not flourish, part and parcel of Idolatry, a system
which, more than anything else the Devil has yet in-
vented, tends to destroy the feelings of general benevo-
lence. Such is Caste, odious, impious, accursed, wher-
ever it shows itself.

Now, Sir, I am ready to answer the inquiry of the
Senator, whether I read these as an interpretation of the
Constitution of the United States. Not precisely ; but

* Journey through the Upper Provinces of India, (London, 1829, ) Vol.
III. p. 365.

REPLY TO ME. CARPENTER. 299

I do read them to exhibit the outrage which seems to
find a vindicator in the Senator from Wisconsin, in
this respect, at least, that he can look at the National
Constitution, interpreted by the National Declaration,
proclaiming the Equal Rights of All, and find no word
empowering Congress to provide that in churches organ-
ized by law this hideous outrage shall cease. I think I
do no injustice to the Senator. He finds no power. He
tells us that if we exercise this power we shall have an
Established Church, and he invokes the National Con-
stitution. Sir, I, too, invoke the National Constitution,
not in one solitary provision, as the Senator does, but
from its Preamble to its last Amendment, and I in-
voke the Declaration of Independence. The Senator
may smile. I know how he treats that great charter.
I know how in other days he has treated it. But, Sir,
the Declaration survives. It has been trifled with, de-
rided, insulted often on this floor, but it is more triumph-
ant now than ever. Its primal truths, announced as
self-evident, are more commanding and more beaming
now than when first uttered. They are like the sun
in the heavens, with light and warmth.

Sir, is not the Senator answered ? Is not the distinc-
tion clear as noonday between what is prohibited by the
Constitution and what is proposed by my amendment ?
The difference between the two is as wide as between
the sky and the earth. They cannot be mingled. There
is no likeness, similitude, or anything by which they
can be brought together. The Senator opposes a relig-
ious amendment. I assert that there shall be no politi-
cal distinction ; and that is my answer to his argument
on churches.

300 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL EIGHTS BILL.

And now, Sir, may I say, in no unkindness, and not
even in criticism, but simply according to the exigen-
cies of this debate, that the Senator from Wisconsin has
erred ? It' you will listen, I think you will see the origin
of his error. I do not introduce it here ; nor should I
refer to it, if he had not introduced it himself. The
Senator has never had an adequate idea of the Great
Declaration. The Senator smiles. I have been in this
Chamber long enough to witness the vicissitudes of
opinion on our Magna Charta. I have seen it derided
by others more than it ever was by the Senator from
Wisconsin.

MR. CARPENTER. I should like to ask the Senator from
Massachusetts when he ever heard me deride it.

MR. SUMNER. The Senator will pardon me; I am
coming to that. The Senator shall know. The person
who first in this Chamber opened assault upon the Dec-
laration was John C. Calhoun, in his speech on the Or-
egon Bill, June 27, 1848. He denounced the claim of
equality as " the most false and dangerous of all politi-
cal errors " ; and he proceeded to say that it " has done
more to retard the cause of Liberty and Civilization,
and is doing more at present, than all other causes com-
bined." He then added, that " for a long time it lay dor-
mant, but in the process of time it began to germinate
and produce its poisonous fruits," 1 these poisonous
fruits being that public sentiment against Slavery which
was beginning to make itself felt.

This extravagance naturally found echo from his fol-
lowers. Mr. Pettit, a Senator from Indiana, after quot-

l Works, Vol. IV. pp. 607, 511, 512.

REPLY TO MR. CARPENTER, 301

ing " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all
men are created equal," proceeded:

" I hold it to be a self-evident lie. There is no such thing.
Sir, tell me that the imbecile, the deformed, the weak, the
blurred intellect in man is my equal, physically, mentally, or
morally, and you tell me a he. Tell me, Sir, that the slave
in the South, who is born a slave, and with but little over
one-half the volume of brain that attaches to the northern
European race, is his equal, and you tell what is physically a
falsehood. There is no truth in it at alL" 1

This was in the Senate, February 20, 1854. Of course
it proceeded on a wretched misconstruction of the Dec-
laration, which announced equality of rights and not
any other equality, physical, intellectual, or moral It
was a declaration of rights, nor more nor less.

Then, in the order of impeachment, followed a re-
markable utterance from a much-valued friend of my
own and of the Senator, the late Rufus Choate, who,
without descending into the same particularity, seems
to have reached a similar conclusion, when, in address-
ing political associates, he characterized the Declaration
of Independence as " that passionate and eloquent man-
ifesto of a revolutionary war," and then again spoke of
its self-evident truths as "the glittering and sounding
generalities of natural right." 2 This was in his letter
to the Maine Whig State Central Committee, August
9, 1856. In my friendship for this remarkable orator,
I can never think of these too famous words without
a pang of regret.

This great question became a hinge in the memorable

1 Speech in the Senate, on the Nebraska and Kansas Bill, February 20,
1854: Congressional Globe, 33d Cong. 1st Sess., Appendix, p. 214.
Works, VoL I. pp. 214, 215.

302 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

debate between Mr. Douglas and Mr. Lincoln in the con-
test for the Senatorship of Illinois, when the former said,
in various forms of speech, that "the Declaration of
Independence only included the white people of the
United States " ; l and Abraham Lincoln replied, that
" the entire records of the world, from the date of the
Declaration of Independence up to within three years
ago, may be searched in vain for one single affirmation,
from one single man, that the negro was not included in
the Declaration." 2 This was in Mr. Lincoln's speech at
Galesburg, October 7, 1858. Elsewhere he repeated the
same sentiment.

Andrew Johnson renewed the assault. After quoting
the great words of the Declaration, he said in this Cham-
ber, December 12, 1859 :

" Is there an intelligent man throughout the whole coun-
try, is there a Senator, when he has stripped himself of all
party prejudice, who will come forward and say that he be-
lieves that Mr. Jefferson, when he penned that paragraph of
the Declaration of Independence, intended it to embrace the
African population 1 Is there a gentleman in the Senate who
believes any such thing 1 . . . . There is not a man of respect-
able intelligence who will hazard his reputation upon such an
assertion." 8

All this is characteristic of the author, as afterward
revealed to us.

Then, Sir, in the list we skip to April 5, 1870, when
the Senator from Wisconsin ranges himself in the line,

1 Political Debates between Hon. Abraham Lincoln and Hon. Stephen A.
Douglas in the Campaign of 1858 in Illinois, pp. 36, 37, 52, 116, 155, 175.

* Ibid., p. 178.

' Speech on Mr. Trumbull's Amendment to Mr. Mason's Resolution rela-
tive to the Invasion of Harper's Ferry by John Brown : Congressional Globe,
36th Cong. 1st Sess., p. 100.

KEPLY TO MR. CARPENTER. 303

characterizing the great truths of the Declaration as
"the generalities of that revolutionary pronunciamen-
to." In reply to myself, he rebuked me, and said that
it was my disposition, if I could not find a thing in the
Constitution, to seek it in the Declaration of Indepen-
dence, and if it were not embodied in " the generali-
ties of that revolutionary pronunciamento," then to go
still further. 1

I present this exposition with infinite reluctance ; but
the Senator makes it necessary. In his speech the other
day, he undertook to state himself anew with regard to
the Declaration. He complained of me because I made
the National Constitution and the National Declaration
coequal, and declared, that, if preference be given to one,
it must be to the Declaration. To that he replied :

" Now the true theory is plain."

Mr. President, you are to have the " true theory " on
this important question :

" If the Senator from Massachusetts says, that in doubtful
cases it is the duty of a court, or the duty of the Senate, or
the duty of any public officer, to consider the Declaration of
Independence, he is right. So he must consider the whole
history of this country ; he must consider the history of the
Colonies, the Articles of Confederation, all anterior history.
That is a principle of Municipal Law. A contract entered
into between two individuals, in the language of the cases,
must be read in the light of the circumstances that surrounded
the parties who made it. Certainly the Constitution of the
United States must be construed upon the same principle ;
and when we are considering a doubtful question, the whole

1 Speech on the Admission of Georgia to Representation in Congress i
Congressional Globe, 41st Cong. 2d Sess., p. 243 - 45.

304 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

former history of the country, the Declaration of Indepen-
dence, the writings of "Washington and of Jefferson and of
Madison, the writings in ' The Federalist,' everything that
pertained to that day and gives color and tone to the Consti-
tution, must be considered." 1

Plainly, here is improvement There is no derision.
The truths of the Declaration are no longer " the gener-
alities of that revolutionary prommciamento."

MR. CARPENTER. Oh, yes, it is ; I stand by that.

MR. SUMNER. The Senator stands by that. Very-
well

MR. CARPENTER. I glory in it. I glory in all the history
of that revolutionary period, our revolutionary fathers, our
revolutionary war. It is the Revolution that I make my
stand upon.

MR. SUMNER. Then, as the Senator from Vermont
[Mr. EDMUNDS] remarks, the Senator should give some
effect to what he glories in. I hope he will not take it
all out in glory, but will see that a little of it is trans-
fused into Human Eights.

MR. CARPENTER. All that is consistent with the express
provisions of the Constitution.

MR. SUMNER. I shall come to that. The point is,
that the Senator treats the Declaration of Independence
as no better than the writings of Washington, of Jeffer-
son, of Madison, " The Federalist," and everything that
pertains to that day. It is only part and parcel of con-
temporary history, of no special consequence, no bind-

i Speech, February 1, 1872: Congressional Globe, 42d Cong. 2d Sess.,
p. 761.

REPLY TO MR. CARPENTER. 305

ing character, not supreme, but only one of the authori-
ties, or at least one of the witnesses, by which we are to
read the Constitution. Sir, is it so regarded by Congress,
or at least is it so regarded by the committee of this
body under whose direction is printed what is known
familiarly as " The Constitution, Eules, and Manual " ?
Here is the little volume, to which we daily turn. I
find that the first document is the National Declaration,
preceding the National Constitution. Sir, it precedes
the Constitution in time, as it is more elevated in char-
acter. The Constitution is a machine, great, mighty,
beneficent. The Declaration supplies the principles
giving character and object to the machine. The Con-
stitution is an earthly body, if you please ; the Declara-
tion is the soul. The powers under the Constitution
are no more than the hand to the body ; the Declaration
is the very soul itself. But the Senator does not see it
so. He sees it as no better than a letter of Jefferson or
Madison, or as some other contemporary incident which
may help us in finding the meaning of the Constitution.
The Senator will not find many ready to place them-
selves in the isolation he adopts. It was not so re-
garded by the historian who has described it with more
power and brilliancy than any other, Mr. Bancroft.
After setting forth what it contains, he presents it as a
new and lofty Bill of Eights :

"This immortal state-paper, which for its composer was
the aurora of enduring fame, was ' the genuine effusion of the
soul of the country at that time,' the revelation of its mind,
when, in its youth, its enthusiasm, its sublime confronting of
danger, it rose to the highest creative powers of which man is
capable. The bill of rights which it promulgates is of rights
VOL. xix. 20

306 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

that are older than human institutions, and spring from the
eternal justice that is anterior to the State." l

The vivid presentment of this state-paper, in its com-
manding character, like an ordinance for mankind, above
all other contemporary things, shows its association with
our great national anniversary.

" The nation, when it made the choice of a day for its
great anniversary, selected not the day of the resolution of
independence, when it closed the past, but that of the decla-
ration of the principles on which it opened its new career." a

Shall I remind you, Sir, of that famous letter by John
Adams to his wife, written the day after the Resolution
of Independence, and pending the Declaration ? Of this
epoch he predicts, in words quoted with annual pride,
that it " will be the most memorable in the history of
America, celebrated by descending generations as the
great anniversary festival, commemorated as the day
of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Al-
mighty, solemnized with pomp and power, with cheers,
games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations,
from one end of this continent to the other, from this
time forward forevermore." 3 And yet this Declaration,
annually celebrated, having the first pages of our statute-
book, placed in the fore-front of the volume of rules for
our guidance in this Chamber, this triumphant Magna
Charta, is to be treated as " the generalities of a revolu-
tionary pronunciamento," or at best as of no more value
than the letter of a contemporary statesman. Sir, the
Senator misconceives the case ; and there, allow me to
say, is his error.

1 Bancroft, History of the United' States, Vol. VIII. p. 472.

a Ibid., p. 475.

Works, Vol. IX. p. 420.

REPLY TO MR. CARPENTER. 307

MR. CARPENTER. The Senator understood me to say, at
least I said, in construing the Constitution you must un-
doubtedly look to the Declaration of Independence, as you
must look to all the contemporary history of that day. Did
I say there was no difference in the different documents?
Did I say that no more importance was to be attached to the
Declaration of Independence than to a letter of Madison or
Washington? No, Sir, I said no such thing.

MR. SUMNER. The Senator shall speak for himself.
He has spoken now, and you shall hear what he said
before :

" Certainly the Constitution of the United States must be
construed upon the same principle."

That is, as " a contract entered into between two indi-
viduals."

"And when we are considering"

What?

" a doubtful question, the whole former history of the country,
the Declaration of Independence, the writings of Washington
and of Jefferson and of Madison, the writings in ' The Feder-
alist,' everything that pertained to that day and gives color
and tone to the Constitution, must be considered."

I am happy in any word of respect for the Declara-
tion, because the claim of Equal Eights stands on the
Constitution interpreted by the Declaration.

This brings me again to the main question. We have
the National Constitution from the Preamble to the sig-
nature of George Washington, and then we have the re-
cent Amendments, all to be interpreted by the National
Declaration, which proclaims, as with trumpet :

308 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

We hold these truths to be self-evident : that all men
are created equal; that they are -endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Unquestionably the Constitution supplies the ma-
chinery by which these great rights are maintained. 1
say it supplies the machinery ; but I insist, against the
Senator, and against all others, that every word in the
Constitution must be interpreted by these primal, self-
evident truths, not merely in a case that is doubtful,
as the Senator says, but constantly and always, so that
the two shall perpetually go together, as the comple-
ment of each other ; but the Declaration has a suprem-
acy grander than that of the Constitution, more sacred
and inviolable, for it gives the law to the Constitution
itself. Every word in the Constitution is subordinate to
the Declaration.

Before the war, when Slavery prevailed, the rule was
otherwise, naturally ; but, as I have already said, the
grandest victory of the war was the establishment of the
new rule by which the Declaration became supreme as
interpreter of the Constitution. Take, therefore, any
phrase in the Constitution, take any power, and you are
to bring it all in subordination to those supreme primal
truths. Every power is but the agent by which they
are maintained ; and when you come to those several
specific powers abolishing slavery, defining citizenship,
securing citizens in their privileges and immunities,
guarding them against any denial of the equal protec-
tion of the laws, and then again securing them the right
to vote, every one of these safeguards must be inter-
preted so as best to maintain Equal Eights. Such I as-
sert to be Constitutional Law.

SECOND REPLY TO MR. CARPENTER. 309

Sir, I cannot see it otherwise. I cannot see this
mighty Magna Charta degraded to the level of a casual
letter or an item of history. Why, Sir, it is the bap-
tismal vow of the Eepublic ; it is the pledge which our
fathers took upon their lips when they asked the fellow-
ship of mankind as a free and independent nation. It
is loftier than the Constitution, which is a convenience
only, while this is a guide. Let no one smile when it
is invoked. Our fathers did not smile on the great day.
It was with them an earnest word, opening the way to
victory, and to that welcome in the human family with
which our nation has been blest. Without these words
what would have been the National Declaration ? How
small ! Simply a dissolution of the tie between the
Colonies and the mother country ; a cutting of the cord>
that is all. Ah ! it was something grander, nobler. It
was the promulgation of primal truths, not only for the
good of our own people, but for the good of all man-
kind. Such truths can never die. It is for us to see
that they are recognized without delay in the adminis-
tration of our own Government.

Mr. Carpenter replied at some length. Mr. Sunnier followed.

SECOND REPLY TO MR. CARPENTER.

THE Senator insists that I am willing to disregard
the Constitution. On what ground can the Senator
make any such assertion? Does he suppose that his
oath is stronger with him than mine with me?

MR. CARPENTER. Will the Senator allow me to answer
him?

MR. SUMNER. Certainly.

310 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

MR. CARPENTER. I assume that, for the reason that when
we come here to discuss a constitutional question, the power
of Congress to do a certain thing, the Senator flies from the
Constitution and goes to the Declaration of Independence,
and says that is the source of power.

MR. SUMNER. The Senator ought to know very well
that I have never said any such thing. The Senator
proclaims that I fly from the Constitution to the Decla-
ration, which I insist is the source of power. I now
yield the floor again, and ask the Senator when I said
what he asserts.

MR. CARPENTER. The Senator said that the Declaration
was coordinate in authority with the Constitution. What
did he mean hy that? I supposed he used the word in the
ordinary acceptation ; and if he did, he meant to say that
the Declaration was a coordinate grant of power.

MR. SUMNER. Just the contrary, Mr. President.
Senators will bear me witness. I appeal to you all.
I said just the contrary. Repeatedly I said that in my
judgment the Declaration of Independence was not a
grant of power, but coequal with the Constitution,
the one being a grant of power, and the other a sover-
eign rule of interpretation. That is what I said. And
now the Senator, in the face of my positive words, not
heeding them at all, although they are found in the
" Globe," vindicates himself by putting into my mouth
what I never said or suggested, and then proceeds to an-
nounce somewhat grandly that I set the Constitution at
nought. I challenge the Senator again to point out one
word that has ever fallen from my lips, during my ser-
vice in this Chamber, to sustain him in his assertion.
I ask him to do it. He cannot. But why this imputa-

SECOND REPLY TO MR. CARPENTER. 311

tion ? Is the oath we have all taken at that desk bind-
ing only on him ? Does he assume that he has a mo-
nopoly of its obligations; that other Senators took it
with levity, ready to disregard it, or at least that I
have taken it so ? Such is the assumption ; at least it
is his assumption with regard to me.

Now I tell the Senator, and I beg him to understand
it for the future, that I shall not allow him to elevate
himself above me in any loyalty to the Constitution.
Willingly do I yield to the Senator in all he can justly
claim of regard and honor. But I do not concede pre-
cedence in that service, where, if he does not magnify
himself, he degrades me.

I have served the National Constitution longer than
he has, and with such fidelity as I could command. I
have served it at moments of peril, when the great prin-
ciples of Liberty to which I have been devoted were in
jeopardy; I have served -it when there were few to
stand together. In upholding this Constitution, never
did I fail at the same time to uphold Human Eights.
That was my supreme object; that was the ardent as-
piration of my soul. Sir, I know how often I have
failed, too often ; but I know that I never did fail in
devotion to the Constitution, for the true interpretation
of which I now plead. The Senator speaks without au-
thority, and, he must pardon me if I say, with levity,
when he makes such an allegation against one whose re-
cord for the past twenty years in this Chamber is ready
to answer him. I challenge him to point out one word
ever uttered by me to justify his assault. He cannot do
it. He makes his onslaught absolutely without one
tittle of evidence.

Sir, I have taken the oath to support the Constitution,

312 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

hut it is that Constitution as I understand it. In other
days, when this Chamher was filled with intolerant
slave-masters, I was told that I did not support the
Constitution, as I have been told to-day by the Senator,
and I was reminded of my oath. In reply I borrowed
the language of Andrew Jackson, and announced, that,
often as I had taken that oath, I had taken it always to
support the Constitution as I understood it ; and it is
so now. I have not taken an oath to support the Con-
stitution as the Senator from Wisconsin understands it,
without its animating soul. Sir, my oath was to sup-
port the National Constitution as interpreted by the
National Declaration. The oath of the Senator from.
Wisconsin was different ; and there, Sir, is the precise
divergence between us. He swore, but on his conscience
was a soulless text. I am glad that my conscience felt
that there was something more.

The Senator must hesitate before he assaults me again
for any failure in devotion to the Constitution. I put
my life against the life of the Senator ; I put my little
service, humble as it is, against the service of the Sena-
tor ; I put every word uttered by me in this Chamber
or elsewhere against all that has been said by the Sena-
tor, and the world shall pronounce between us on the
question he has raised. If I have inclined in favor of
Human Rights, if I have at all times insisted that the
National Constitution shall be interpreted always so
that Human Rights shall find the greatest favor, I have
committed no error. In the judgment of the Senator I
may have erred, but I know that in the judgment of the
American people I have not erred ; and here I put my-
self upon the country to be tried.

Sir, on that issue I invoke the sentiments of man-

SECOND REPLY TO MR. CARPENTER. 313

kind and posterity when all of us have passed away. I
know that it will be then written, that the National
Constitution is the Charter of a mighty Republic dedi-
cated to Human Rights, dedicated at its very birth by
the Great Declaration, and that whoever fails to enlarge
and ennoble it by the interpretation through which Hu-
man Rights are most advanced will fail in his oath to
support the Constitution : ay, Sir, fail in his oath !

The debate was continued successive days : Mr. Thurman of Ohio,
Mr. Ferry of Connecticut, Mr. Corbett and Mr. Kelly, both of Oregon,
Mr. Hill of Georgia, Mr. Stevenson of Kentucky, and Mr. Tipton of
Nebraska speaking against Mr. Sumner's bill ; Mr. Harlan, of Iowa, in
favor of it ; and Mr. Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey, declaring his sup-
port, if Mr. Stunner would modify its provisions as to "churches."

The substitute of Mr. Carpenter was rejected, Yeas 17, Nays 34.
A motion of Mr. Frelinghuysen to make the bill inapplicable to
"churches" was carried, Yeas 29, Nays 24. The next question was
on a motion of Mr. Carpenter to strike out the clause relating to
"juries." This was earnestly debated by Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont.
Before the vote was taken, Mr. Sumner remarked :

There is a famous saying that comes to us from the
last century, that the whole object of government in
England of King, Lords, and Commons is to bring
twelve men into a jury-box. Sir, that is the whole
object of government, not only in England, but in
every other country where law is administered through
popular institutions; and especially is it the object
of government here in the United States; and the
clause in this bill which it is now proposed to strike
out is simply to maintain that great principle of popu-
lar institutions.

This amendment was rejected, Yeas 12, Nays 42. Other amend*
ments were moved and rejected.

314 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL EIGHTS BILL.

The question was then taken on Mr. Sumner's bill as an amendment
to the Amnesty Bill, and it was adopted by the casting vote of Vice-
President Colfax, the Senate being equally divided, Yeas 28, Nays
28, as follows :

YKAS, Messrs. Ames, Anthony, Brownlow, Cameron, Chandler,
Clayton, Conkling, Cragin, Fenton, Ferry of Michigan, Frelinghuysen,
Gilbert, Hamlin, Harlan, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Osborn, Patter-
son, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Rice, Sherman, Spencer, Stunner, West, Wil-
son, Wiudom, and Wright, 28.

NAYS, Messrs. Blair, Boreman, Carpenter, Cole, Corbett, Davis
of West Virginia, Ferry of Connecticut, Goldthwaite, Hamilton of
Texas, Hill, Hitchcock, Johnston, Kelly, Logan, Morrill of Maine,
Norwood, Pool, Robertson, Saulsbury, Sawyer, Schurz, Scott, Steven-
son, Stockton, Thurman, Tipton, Trumbull, and Vickers, 28.

ABSENT, Messrs. Alcorn, Bayard, Buckingham, Caldwell, Casserly,
Cooper, Davis of Kentucky, Edmunds, Flanagan, Hamilton of Mary-
land, Howe, Kellogg, Lewis, Nye, Pratt, Sprague, and Stewart, 17.

The announcement of the adoption of the amendment was received
with great applause in the galleries.

The provisions relating to Amnesty were then taken up, and after
some modification of them Mr. Sumner declared his purpose to vote for
the Bill as amended, that it was now elevated and consecrated, and
that whoever voted against it must take the responsibility of opposing
a great measure for the assurance of Equal Rights.

The question was then taken on the passage of the bill as amended,
when it was rejected, Yeas 33, Nays 19, two-thirds not voting in
the affirmative. Democrats opposed to the Civil Rights Bill voted
against Amnesty with this association.

The attention of the Senate was at once occupied by other business,
o that Amnesty and Civil Rights were for the time superseded.

May 8th, another Amnesty Bill, which had passed the House, being
under consideration, Mr. Sumner moved to strike out all after the en-
acting clause and insert the Civil Rights Bill. Mr. Ferry, of Connect-
icut, promptly objected that the amendment was not in order ; but
Vice-President Colfax overruled the point, and was sustained by the
Senate. The next day Mr. Ferry moved to strike out of Mr. Sumner's

I the words applicable to "common schools and other public institu-
tions of learning," which was rejected, Yeas 25, Nays 26. Mr. Blair,
of Missouri, then moved that "the people of every city, county, or State "
"decide for themselves the question of mixed or separate
schools," and this was rejected, Yeas 23, Nays 30. Mr. Carpenter

SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL EIGHTS BILL. 315

moved to strike out the section relating to "juries," and this was re-
jected, Yeas 16, Nays 33. On a motion by Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois,
to strike out the first five sections of Mr. Simmer's bill, the votes being
Yeas 29, Nays 29, the casting vote of Vice- President Colfax was given
in the negative, amidst manifestations of applause in the galleries. The
question was then taken on the motion to substitute the Civil Rights
Bill for the Amnesty Bill, and it was lost, Yeas 27, Nays 28. Mr.
Surnner at once moved the Civil Rights Bill as an addition, with the
result, Yeas 28, Nays 28, and the adoption of the amendment by the
casting vote of the Vice-President. This amendment as in Committee
of the Whole was then concurred in by the Senate, Yeas 27, Nays 25.
On the passage of the bill thus amended, the vote stood, Yeas 32,
Nays 22 ; so that, two-thirds not voting in the affirmative, the bill was
rejected.

Again there was a lull in the two measures.

May 10th, Mr. Sumner introduced another Supplementary Civil
Rights Bill, being his original bill with such verbal changes and emen-
dations as had occurred during its protracted consideration, and the
bill was placed on the calendar of the Senate without reference to a
committee.

May 21st, the Senate having under consideration a bill to extend the
provisions of the Enforcement Act in the Southern States, known as
the Ku-Klux Act, and entering upon a "night session" in order to
pass the bill, Mr. Sumner, who was an invalid, contrary to his habit
left the Chamber. In the early morning the bill was passed, when the
Senate, on motion of Mr. Carpenter, of Wisconsin, took up Mr. Sum-
ner's Civil Rights Bill, and, striking out all after the enacting clause,
inserted a substitute, imperfect in machinery, and with no allusion to
schools, institutions of learning, churches, cemeteries, juries, or the
word "white." The bill thus changed passed the Senate in Mr. Sum-
ner's absence. Meanwhile Mr. Spencer, of Alabama, had moved an ad-
journment, saying, "It is unfair and unjust to take a vote upon this
bill during the absence of the Senator from Massachusetts I in-
sist on the motion to adjourn, as the Senator from Massachusetts is not
here." The motion was rejected. A messenger from the Senate in-
formed Mr. Sumner of the effort making, and he hurried to the Cham-
ber ; but the bill had been already acted on, and another Amnesty Bill
on the calendar taken up, on motion of Mr. Robertson, of South
Carolina, and pressed to a final vote. Mr. Sumner arrived in season to

316 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

protest against this measure, unless .associated with Equal Rights. At
the first opportunity after reaching his seat, he said :

MR. PRESIDENT, I understand that in my absence,
and without any notice to me from any quarter, the
Senate have adopted an emasculated Civil Eights Bill,
with at least two essential safeguards wanting, one
concerning the Common Schools, and the other concern-
ing Juries. The original bill contains both, and more ;
and I now ask the Senate, most solemnly, to consid-
er whether, while decreeing equal rights for all in the
land, they will say that those equal rights shall not pre-
vail in the common school and in the jury. Such I un-
derstand to have been the vote of the Senate. What
will ensue, should it be confirmed by the other House ?
The spirit of Caste will receive new sanction in the ed-
ucation of children ; justice will find a new impediment
in the jury.

Sir, I plead for the colored race, who unhappily have
no representative on this floor. I ask the Senate to set
its face against the spirit of Caste now prevailing in the
common schools, against the injustice now installed in
the jury. I insist that the Senate shall not lose this
great opportunity. You recognize the commanding prin-
ciple of the bill. Why not, then, apply it throughout,
so that hereafter there shall be no question ? For, Sir,
be well assured, there is but one way of settling this
great cause, and that is by conceding these equal rights.
So long as they are denied you will have the colored
people justly complaining and knocking at your doors,
and may I say, so long as I remain, in this Chamber
you will have me perpetually demanding their rights.
I cannot, I will not cease. I ask, Sir, that this terrible
strife be brought to an end, and the cause settled for-

SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL. 317

ever. Now is the time. But this cannot be, except by
the establishment of equal rights absolutely and com-
pletely wherever the law can reach.

Sir, early in life I vowed myself to nothing less than
the idea of making the principles and promises of the
Declaration of Independence a living reality. This was
my aspiration. For that I have labored. And now at
this moment, as its fulfilment seems within reach, I ap-
peal to my fellow-Senators that there shall be no failure
on their part. Make, I entreat you, the Declaration of
Independence in its principles and promises a living
letter; make it a practical reality.

One word more. You are about to decree the remov-
al of disabilities from those who have been in rebellion.
Why will you not, with better justice, decree a similar
removal of disabilities from those who have never in-
jured you ? Why will you not accord to the colored
race the same amnesty you offer to former Rebels ? Sir,
you cannot go before the country with this unequal
measure. Therefore, Sir, do I insist that Amnesty shall
not become a law, unless at the same time the Equal
Rights of All are secured. In debate this winter I have
often said this, and I repeat it now with all the earnest-
ness of my nature. Would I were stronger, that I
might impress it upon the Senate !

A motion by Mr. Sumner to append his bill was rejected, Yeas 13,
Nays 27, and the question returned on the Amnesty Bill.

Mr. Sumner then declared his purpose to vote against the Amnesty
Bill:

MR. PRESIDENT, I long to vote for amnesty ; I have
always hoped to vote for it ; but, Sir, I should be un-
worthy of my seat as a Senator if I voted for it while
the colored race are shut out from their rights, and the

318 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

"ban of color is recognized in this Chamber. Sir, the
time has not come for amnesty. How often must I re-
peat, " Be just to the colored race before you are gen-
erous to former rebels " ? Unwillingly I press this
truth ; but it belongs to the moment. I utter it with
regret ; for I long to record my name in behalf of am-
nesty. And now let it not go forth that I am against
amnesty. I here declare from my seat that I am for
amnesty, provided it can be associated with the equal
rights of the colored race ; but if not so associated, then,
so help me God, I am against it.

The Amnesty Bill was then passed, with only two dissenting votes,
Mr. Sunnier, and Mr. Nye, of Nevada.

Mr. Sumner then made an ineffectual effort to obtain a reconsidera-
tion of the votes just taken, so that on another day, in a full Senate, he
could be heard. Here he said :

MR. PRESIDENT, I had supposed that there was an un-
derstanding among the friends of civil rights that the
bill for their security should be kept on a complete
equality with that for amnesty, which could be only
by awaiting a bill from the House securing civil rights,
precisely as we have a bill from the House securing am-
nesty. The two measures are not on an equality, when
the Senate takes up a House bill for amnesty and takes
up simply a Senate bill for civil rights. I will not char-
acterize the transaction ; but to me it is painful, for it
involves the sacrifice of the equal rights of the colored
race, as is plain, very plain. All this winter I have
stood guard here, making an earnest though unsuccess-
ful effort to secure those rights, insisting always that
they should be recognized side by side with the rights
of former Rebels. Many Senators agreed with me ; but
now, at the last moment, comes the sacrifice. The Am-

SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL .RIGHTS BILL. 319

nesty Bill, which has already prevailed in the House,
passes, and only awaits the signature of the President ;
while an imperfect Civil Eights Bill, shorn of its best
proportions, which has never passed the House, is taken
up and rushed through the Senate. Who can tell its
chances in the other House ? Such, Sir, is the indiffer-
ence with which the Senate treats the rights of an op-
pressed people !

Sir, I sound the cry. The rights of the colored race
have been sacrificed in this Chamber, where the Eepub-
lican Party has a large majority, that party, by its his-
tory, its traditions, and all its professions, bound to their
vindication. Sir, I sound the cry. Let it go forth that
the sacrifice has been perpetrated. Amnesty is adopted ;
but where are the equal rights of the colored race? still
afloat between the two Houses on an imperfect bill. And
what is their chance ? Pass the imperfect bill and still
there is a denial of equal rights. But what is the chance
of passing even this imperfect measure ? Who can say ?
Is it not a sham ? Is it not a wrong which ought to
ring through the land ?

Sir, I call upon the colored people throughout the
country to take notice how their rights are paltered
with. I wish them to understand, that here in this
Chamber, with a large majority of Eepublicans, the
sacrifice has been accomplished ; and let them observe
how. They will take note that amnesty has been se-
cured, while nothing is secured to them. Now, Sir,
would you have your work effective, you should delay
amnesty until a bill for civil rights has passed the
House, and reaching this Chamber the two measures
will then be on a complete equality. Anything else is
sacrifice of the colored race ; anything else is abandon-
ment of an imperative duty.

320 SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

The Senate then adjourned at ten o'clock and twenty minutes on
the morning of May 22d.

Nothing further occurred on this interesting subject during the
remainder of the session. The Amnesty Bill became a law. The
Civil Rights Bill was not considered in the House ; so that even
this imperfect measure failed. At the next session of Congress Mr.
Stunner was an invalid, under medical treatment, and withdrawn from
the Senate, so that he was unable to press his bill ; nor did any other
Senator move it,

December 1, 1873, on the first day of the session, Mr. Sunnier again
brought forward his bill in the following terms :

A BILL supplementary to an Act entitled " An Act to protect all persons
in the United States in their civil rights, and furnish the means of their
vindication," passed April 9, 1866.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
Stales of America in Ctmgress assembled, That no citizen of the United
States shall, by reason of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, be
excepted or excluded from the full enjoyment of any accommodation, ad-
vantage, facility, or privilege furnished by inn-keepers; by common car-
riers, whether on land or water ; by licensed owners, managers, or lessees
of theatres or other places of public amusement ; by trustees, commis-
sioners, superintendents, teachers, or other officers of common schools and
public institutions of learning, the same being supported by moneys de-
rived from general taxation or authorized by law ; also of cemetery asso-
ciations and benevolent associations supported or authorized in the same
way : Provided, That private schools, cemeteries, and institutions of learn-
ing, established exclusively for white or colored persons, and maintained
respectively by voluntary contributions, shall remain according to the
terms of their original establishment.

SKC. 2. That any person violating any of the provisions of the fore-
going section, or aiding in their violation, or inciting thereto, shall, for
every such offence, forfeit and pay the sum of five hundred dollars to
the person aggrieved thereby, to be recovered in an action on the case, with
full costs, and shall also, for every such offence, be deemed guilty of a mis-
demeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than five
hundred nor more than one thousand dollars, or shall be imprisoned not
less than thirty days nor more than one year : Provided, That the party
aggrieved shall not recover more than one penalty j and when the offence is
a refusal of burial, the penalty may be recovered by the heirs-at-law of the
person whose body has been refused burial.

SEC. 3. That the same jurisdiction and powers are hereby conferred, and
the same duties enjoined upon the courts and officers of the United States
in the execution of this Act, as are conferred and enjoined upon such court*

SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL. 321

and officers in sections three, four, five, seven, and ten of an Act entitled
" An Act to protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights,
and furnish the means of their vindication," passed April 9, 1866, and these
sections are hereby made a part of this Act ; and any of the aforesaid offi-
cers, failing to institute and prosecute such proceedings herein required,
shall, for every such offence, forfeit and pay the sum of five hundred dollars
to the person aggrieved thereby, to be recovered by an action on the case,
with full costs, and shall, on conviction thereof, be deemed guilty of a mis-
demeanor, and be fined not less than one thousand dollars nor more than
five thousand dollars.

SEC. 4. That no citizen, possessing all other qualifications which are or
may be prescribed by law, shall be disqualified for service as juror in any
court, National or State, by reason of race, color, or previous condition of
servitude ; and any officer or other person charged with any duty in the
selection or summoning of jurors, who shall fail to summon any citizen for
the reason above named, shall, on conviction thereof, be deemed guilty of a
misdemeanor, and be fined not less than one thousand dollars nor more
than five thousand dollars.

SEC. 5. That every discrimination against any citizen on account of
color, by the use of the word "white," or any other term in law, stat-
ute, ordinance, or regulation, National or State, is hereby repealed and
annulled.

On the reintroduction of this bill, the original clause relating to
"churches" was omitted, in order to keep it in substantial harmony
with the votes of the Senate.

VOL. XIX. 21

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY

Los Angeles
This book is DUE on the last date stamped below.

IU "964

AfcC'U LD-urtl

MAY 25 1971

2> K

m L9-75m-7,'61 (0143764)444

3 158 00290 0537

415.6

S95
v.19