Charles Sumner; his complete works, volume 20 (of 20)

By Author	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Title	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Language

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: Charles Sumner; his complete works, volume 20 (of 20)
Author: Sumner, Charles
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Charles Sumner; his complete works, volume 20 (of 20)" ***

produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)

ebooks. A list is given at the end.

[Illustration: Eng’d by A H Ritchie: HORACE GREELEY]

Statesman Edition Vol. XX

Charles Sumner

HIS COMPLETE WORKS

With Introduction
BY
HON. GEORGE FRISBIE HOAR

[Illustration]

BOSTON
LEE AND SHEPARD
MCM

Statesman Edition.
LIMITED TO ONE THOUSAND COPIES.
OF WHICH THIS IS
No. 320.

Norwood Press:
NORWOOD, MASS., U.S.A.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME XX.

PAGE

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: ITS PROPER NUMBER. Remarks in the
Senate, on the Bill for the Apportionment of Representatives among
the States, January 29, 1872 1

REFORM AND PURITY IN GOVERNMENT: NEUTRAL DUTIES. SALE OF ARMS TO
BELLIGERENT FRANCE. Speech in the Senate, February 28, 1872 5

PARLIAMENTARY LAW ON THE APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEES OF THE
SENATE. Two Protests against the Competency of the Senate Committee
to investigate the Sale of Arms to France, March 26 and 27, 1872 45

BOOKS ON THE FREE LIST. Remarks in the Senate on moving an
Amendment to a Tariff Bill, March 27, 1872 61

THE NASBY LETTERS. Introduction to the Collection, April 1, 1872 65

ADVICE TO THE COLORED PEOPLE. Letter to the National Convention of
Colored People at New Orleans, April 7, 1872 68

DIPLOMATIC AGENTS OF THE UNITED STATES NOT TO ACCEPT GIFTS FROM
FOREIGN POWERS. Remarks in the Senate, May 2, 1872 70

PRESERVATION OF THE PARK AT WASHINGTON. Remarks in the Senate,
May 15, 1872 72

HOURS OF LABOR. Letter to the Convention of the Massachusetts
Labor Union in Boston, May 25, 1872 79

ARBITRATION AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR WAR. Resolutions in the Senate,
May 31, 1872, concerning Arbitration as a Substitute for War in
determining Differences between Nations 80

REPUBLICANISM _vs._ GRANTISM. Speech in the Senate, May 31, 1872 83

INTEREST AND DUTY OF COLORED CITIZENS IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
Letter to Colored Citizens, July 29, 1872 173

LETTER TO SPEAKER BLAINE. August 5, 1872 196

RETROSPECT AND PROMISE. Address at a Serenade before his House in
Washington, August 9, 1872 202

FREDERICK DOUGLASS AND PRESIDENT GRANT. Letter to Hon. Andrew D.
White, President of Cornell University, August 10, 1872 205

GREELEY OR GRANT? Speech intended to be delivered at Faneuil Hall,
Boston, September 3, 1872 209

NO NAMES OF BATTLES WITH FELLOW-CITIZENS ON THE ARMY-REGISTER OR
THE REGIMENTAL COLORS OF THE UNITED STATES. Bill in the Senate,
December 2, 1872 255

TRIBUTE TO HORACE GREELEY. Remarks intended to be made in the
Senate, in seconding a Motion for Adjournment on the Occasion of
Mr. Greeley’s Funeral, December 3, 1872 256

RELIEF OF BOSTON. Remarks in the Senate, December 12, 1872 258

THE LATE HON. GARRETT DAVIS, SENATOR OF KENTUCKY. Remarks in the
Senate, on his Death, December 18, 1872 261

EQUALITY IN CIVIL RIGHTS. Letter to the Committee of Arrangements
for the Celebration of the Anniversary of Emancipation in the
District of Columbia, April 16, 1873 266

EQUAL RIGHTS OF COLORED FELLOW-CITIZENS IN NORMAL SCHOOLS. Letter
read at a Public Meeting in Washington, June 22, 1873 268

THE PRESIDENT OF HAYTI AND MR. SUMNER. Letter in Reply to one from
the Former, July 4, 1873 270

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION. Letter to Henry Richard, M.P., on the
Vote in the House of Commons agreeing to his Motion for an Address
to the Queen, praying Communication with Foreign Powers with a View
to a General and Permanent System of International Arbitration,
July 10, 1873 273

A COMMON-SCHOOL SYSTEM IRRESPECTIVE OF COLOR. Letter to the Colored
Citizens of Washington, July 29, 1873 275

BOSTON: ITS PROPER BOUNDARIES. Letter to Hon. G. W. Warren, of
Charlestown, on the Annexion to Boston of the Suburban Towns,
October 4, 1873 279

YELLOW FEVER AT MEMPHIS AND SHREVEPORT: AID FOR THE SUFFERERS.
Remarks before the Board of Trade at Boston, October 24, 1873 281

THE CASE OF THE VIRGINIUS. Letter to the Cuban Mass Meeting in
New York, November 15, 1873 284

THE SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL-RIGHTS BILL AGAIN: IMMEDIATE ACTION URGED.
Remarks in the Senate, December 2, 1873 286

OUR PILGRIM FOREFATHERS. Speech at the Dinner of the New England
Society in New York, December 22, 1873 291

SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL-RIGHTS BILL: THE LAST APPEAL. Remarks in the
Senate, January 27, 1874 301

INDEX 317

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: ITS PROPER NUMBER.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON THE BILL FOR THE APPORTIONMENT OF
REPRESENTATIVES AMONG THE STATES, JANUARY 29, 1872.

MR. PRESIDENT,--Before the vote is taken I desire to make one remark. I
was struck with the suggestion of the Senator from Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN],
the other day, with regard to the proposition which comes from the
House. He reminded us that it was a House proposition, and that it was
natural that the House should be allowed to regulate itself. I think
there is much in that worthy of consideration. I doubt if the Senate
would receive with much favor any proposition from the House especially
applicable to us. I think we should be disposed to repel it. I think we
should say that our experience should enable us to judge that question
better than the experience of the House. And now I ask whether the
experience of the House does not enable them to judge of the question
of numbers better than we can judge of it? On general grounds I confess
I should myself prefer a smaller House; personally I incline that way;
but I am not willing on that point to set myself against the House.

Then, Sir, I cannot be insensible to the experience of other countries.
I do not know whether Senators have troubled themselves on that head;
but if they have not, I think it will not be uninteresting to them to
have their attention called to the numbers of the great legislative
bodies of the world at this moment. For instance, beginning with
England, there is the upper House, the Chamber of Peers, composed of
four hundred and sixty-six members; then the lower House, the House
of Commons, with six hundred and fifty-eight members. We know that,
practically, these members attend only in comparatively small numbers;
that it is only on great questions that either House is full.

MR. TRUMBULL. Did the House of Lords ever have anything like that
number present?

MR. SUMNER. It has had several hundred. There are four hundred and
sixty-six entitled to seats in the House of Lords.

Pass over to France. The National Assembly, sitting at Versailles at
this moment, elected February 8 and July 2, 1871, consists of seven
hundred and thirty-eight members.

Pass on to Prussia. The upper Chamber of the Parliament of Prussia has
two hundred and sixty-seven members; the lower Chamber has four hundred
and thirty-two. Now we all know that Prussia is a country where no rule
of administration or of constitution is adopted lightly, and everything
is considered, if I may so express myself, in the light of science.

Pass to Austria, under the recent organization. You are aware that
there are two different Parliaments now in Austria,--one for what is
called the cis-Leithan territories, territories this side of the river
Leitha; the other, trans-Leithan, or those on the other side, being the
Hungarian territory. Beginning with those on this side of the river,
the upper House consists of one hundred and seventy-five members:
observe, it is more than twice as large as our Senate. The lower House
consists of two hundred and three members: smaller than our House of
Representatives. But now pass to the other side of the river and look
at the Hungarian Parliament. There the upper House contains two hundred
and sixty-six members, and the lower House, or Chamber of Deputies, as
it is called, four hundred and thirty-eight.

Pass to Italy, a country organized under a new constitution in the
light of European and American experience, liberal, and with a
disposition to found its institutions on the basis of science. The
Senate of Italy contains two hundred and seventy members, the Chamber
of Deputies five hundred and eight.

Then pass to Spain. There the upper branch of the Cortes contains one
hundred and ninety-six members, and the lower branch four hundred and
sixteen.

So that you will find in all these countries,--Great Britain, France,
Prussia, Austria in its two Parliaments, Italy, and Spain,--that the
number adopted for the lower House is much larger than any now proposed
for our House of Representatives.

I call attention to this fact because it illustrates by the experience
of other nations what may be considered as a rule on this subject. At
any rate, it shows that other nations are not deterred by anything in
political experience from having a House with these large numbers;
and this perhaps is of more value because European writers, political
philosophers for successive generations, have warred against large
bodies. We have the famous saying of the Cardinal de Retz, that
any body of men above a hundred is a mob; and that saying, coming
from so consummate a statesman and wit, has passed into a proverb,
doubtless affecting the judgment of many minds; and yet in the face of
this testimony, and with the writings of political philosophers all
inclining against numbers, we find that the actual practical experience
of Europe has gone the other way. The popular branch in all these
considerable countries is much more numerous than it is now proposed to
make our House of Representatives.

REFORM AND PURITY IN GOVERNMENT: NEUTRAL DUTIES. SALE OF ARMS TO
BELLIGERENT FRANCE.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, FEBRUARY 28, 1872.

February 12, 1872, Mr. Sumner introduced a resolution, with a
preamble setting forth its grounds, providing,--

“That a select committee of seven be appointed to investigate
all sales of ordnance stores made by the Government of the
United States during the war between France and Germany;
to ascertain the persons to whom such sales were made, the
circumstances under which they were made, and the real parties
in interest, and the sums respectively paid and received by the
real parties; and that the committee have power to send for
persons and papers; and that the investigation be conducted in
public.”

And on his motion it was ordered to lie on the table and be printed.

On the 14th the resolution was taken up for consideration, when
Mr. Sumner entered into an exposition of the matter referred to
in the preamble, and of the law applicable thereto, remarking in
conclusion:--

“For the first time has the United States, within my knowledge,
fallen under suspicion of violating the requirement of
neutrality on this subject. Such seems to be our present
position. We are under suspicion. What I propose is a searching
inquiry, according to the magnitude of the interests involved,
to ascertain if this is without just grounds.”

Thereupon ensued a long and acrimonious debate,--toward the close
of which, Mr. Sumner, on the 28th, in review of the case, spoke as
follows:--

MR PRESIDENT,--Besides the unaccustomed interest which this debate
excites, I cannot fail to note that it has wandered far beyond any
purpose of mine, and into fields where I have no desire to follow. In
a few plain remarks I shall try to bring it back to the real issue,
which I hope to present without passion or prejudice. I declare only
the rule of my life, when I say that nothing shall fall from me to-day
which is not prompted by the love of truth and the desire for justice;
but you will pardon me, if I remember that there is something on this
planet higher than the Senate or any Senator, higher than any public
functionary, higher than any political party: it is the good name of
the American people and the purity of Government, which must be saved
from scandal. In this spirit and with this aspiration I shall speak
to-day.

In considering this resolution we must not forget the peculiar
demands of the present moment. An aroused community in the commercial
metropolis of our country has unexpectedly succeeded in overthrowing a
corrupt ring by which millions of money had been sacrificed. Tammany
has been vanquished. Here good Democrats vied with Republicans. The
country was thrilled by the triumph, and insisted that it should
be extended. Then came manifestations against abuses of the civil
service generally, and especially in that other Tammany, the New York
custom-house. The call for investigation at last prevailed in this
Chamber, and the newspapers have been burdened since with odious
details. Everybody says there must be reform, so that the Government
in all its branches shall be above suspicion. The cry for reform is
everywhere,--from New York to New Orleans. Within a few days we hear
of a great meeting, amounting to ten thousand, in the latter city,
without distinction of party, calling for reform; and the demand is
echoed from place to place. Reform is becoming a universal watchword.

In harmony with this cry is the appointment of a Civil-Service
Commission, which has proposed mild measures looking to purity and
independence in office-holders.

Amidst these transactions, occupying the attention of the country,
certain facts are reported, tending to show abuses in the sale of arms
at the Ordnance Office, exciting at least suspicion in that quarter;
and this is aggravated by a seeming violation of neutral duties at a
critical moment, when, on various grounds, the nation was bound to
peculiar care. It appeared as if our neutral duties were sacrificed to
money-making, if not to official jobbers. The injunction of Iago seemed
to be obeyed: “Put money in thy purse.” These things were already known
in Europe, especially through a notorious trial,[1] and then by a
legislative inquiry, so as to become a public scandal. It was time that
something should be done to remove the suspicion. This could be only
by a searching investigation in such way as to satisfy all at home and
abroad that there was no whitewashing.

In proportion to the magnitude of the question and the great interests
involved, whether of money or neutral duty, was the corresponding
responsibility on our part. Here was a case for action without delay.

Under these circumstances I brought forward the present motion. Here
I acted in entire harmony with that movement, now so much applauded,
which overthrew Tammany, and that other movement which has exposed
the Custom-House. Its object was inquiry into the sale of arms. This
was the objective point. But much of this debate has turned on points
merely formal, if not entirely irrelevant.

More than once it has been asserted that I am introducing “politics”;
and then we have been reminded of the Presidential election, which to
certain Senators is a universal prompter. I asked for reform, and the
Senator from Indiana [Mr. MORTON], seizing the party bugle, sounded “To
arms!” But I am not tempted to follow him. I have nothing to say of
the President or of the Presidential election. The Senator cannot make
me depart from the rule I have laid down for myself. I introduce no
“politics,” but only a question which has become urgent, affecting the
civil service of the country.

Now, Sir, I have been from the beginning in favor of civil-service
reform. I am the author of the first bill on that subject ever
introduced into Congress, as long ago as the spring of 1864.[2] I am
for a real reform that shall reach the highest as well as the lowest,
and I know no better way to accomplish this beneficent result than by
striving at all times for purity in the administration of Government.
Therefore, when officials fall under suspicion, I should feel myself
disloyal to the Government, if I did not insist on the most thorough
inquiry. So I have voted in the past, so I must vote in the future.
Call you this politics? Not in the ordinary sense of the term. It is
only honesty and a just regard for the public weal.

Then it has been said that I am a French agent, and even a Prussian
agent,--two in one. Sir, I am nothing but a Senator, whose attention
was first called to this matter by a distinguished citizen not named in
this debate. Since then I have obtained such information with regard to
it as was open to me,--all going to develop a case for inquiry.

I should say nothing more in reply to this allegation but for the
vindictive personal assault made upon a valued friend, the Marquis de
Chambrun. The Senator from Missouri [Mr. SCHURZ] has already spoken
for him; but I claim this privilege also. Besides his own merits,
this gentleman is commended to Americans by his association with the
two French names most cherished in our country, Lafayette and De
Tocqueville. I have known him from the very day of his arrival in
Washington early in the spring of 1865, and have seen him since, in
unbroken friendship, almost daily. Shortly after his arrival I took him
with me on a visit to Mr. Lincoln at the front, close upon the capture
of Richmond. This stranger began his remarkable intimacy with American
life by several days in the society of the President only one week
before his death. He was by the side of the President in his last visit
to a military hospital, and when he last shook hands with the soldiers;
also when he made his last speech from the window of the Executive
Mansion, the stranger was his guest, standing by his side. From that
time down to this day of accusation his intimacies have extended beyond
those of any other foreigner. His studies of our institutions have been
minute and critical, being second only to those of his late friend De
Tocqueville. Whether conversing on his own country or on ours, he is
always at home.

If at any time the Marquis de Chambrun sustained official relations
with the French Government, or was its agent, he never spoke of it to
me; nor did I ever know it until the papers produced by the Senator
from Iowa [Mr. HARLAN]. Our conversation was always that of friends,
and on topics of general interest, not of business. Though ignorant
of any official relations with his own Government, I could not fail
to know his close relations with members of our Government, ending in
his recent employment to present our case in French for the Geneva
tribunal,--an honorable and confidential service, faithfully performed.

The Senator from Indiana knew of the arms question some five months
before the meeting of Congress. I did not. It was after the session
began, and just before the holidays, that I first knew of it. And
here my informant was not a foreigner, but, as I have already said, a
distinguished citizen. The French “spy,” as he is so happily called,
though with me daily, never spoke of it; nor did I speak of it to
him. By-and-by the Senator from Missouri mentioned it, and then, in
my desire to know the evidence affecting persons here, if any such
existed, I spoke to my French friend. This was only a few days before
the resolution.

Such is the history of my relations with the accused. There is nothing
to disguise, nothing that I should not do again. I know no rule of
senatorial duty or of patriotism which can prevent me from obtaining
information of any kind from any body, especially when the object is to
pursue fraud and to unmask abuse. Is not a French gentleman a competent
witness? Once the black could not testify against the white, and now
in some places the testimony of a Chinese is rejected. But I tolerate
no such exclusion. Let me welcome knowledge always, and from every
quarter. “Hail, holy light!”--no matter from what star or what nation
it may shine.

And this gentleman, fresh from a confidential service to our own
Government, enjoying numerous intimacies with American citizens,
associated with illustrious names in history and literature, and
immediately connected with one of the highest functionaries of the
present French Government, M. de Rémusat, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
is insulted here as an “emissary” and a “spy”; nay, more, France is
insulted,--for these terms are applied only to the secret agents of
an enemy in time of war. But enough. To such madness of error and
vindictive accusation is this defence carried!

Another charge is that I am making a case for Prussia against our own
country. Oh, no! I am making a case for nobody. I simply try to relieve
my country from an odious suspicion, and to advance the cause of good
government. The Senator from Indiana supposes that this effort of mine,
having such objects, may prejudice the Emperor of Germany against us
in the arbitration of the San Juan question. The Senator does not pay
a lofty compliment to that enlightened and victorious ruler. Nay, Sir,
the very suggestion of the Senator is an insult to him, which he is too
just to resent, but which cannot fail to excite a smile of derision.
Surely the Senator was not in earnest.

The jest of the Senator, offered for argument, seems to forget that
all these things are notorious in Europe, through the active press of
Paris and London. Why, Sir, our own State Department furnishes official
evidence that the alleged sale of arms to the French by our Government
is known in Berlin itself, right under the eyes of the Emperor. Our
Minister there, Mr. Bancroft, in his dispatch of January 7, 1871,
furnishes the following testimony from the London “Times”:--

“During the Crimean War, arms and munitions of war had been freely
exported from Prussia to Russia; and recently rifled cannon
and ammunition have been furnished to the French in enormous
quantities, _not only by private American traders, but by the War
Department at Washington_.”[3]

These latter words are italicized in the official publication of our
Government, and thus blazoned to the world. I do not adduce them to
show that the War Department did sell arms to belligerent France, but
that even in Berlin the imputation upon us was known and actually
reported by our Minister. If the latter made any observations on
this imputation I know not; for at this point in his dispatch are
those convenient asterisks which are the substitute for inconvenient
revelations.

In the same spirit with the last triviality, but in the anxiety to
clutch at something, it is said that the Alabama Claims are endangered
by this inquiry. Very well, Sir. On this point I am clear. If these
historic claims, so interesting to the American people, are to be
pressed at the cost of purity in our own Government, they are not worth
the terrible price. Better give them up at once. Let them all go, every
dollar. “First pure, then peaceable”;[4] above all things purity. Sir,
I have from the beginning insisted that England should be held to just
account for her violation of international duty toward us. Is that
any reason why I should not also insist upon inquiry into the conduct
of officials at home, to the end that the Government may be saved
from reproach? Surely we shall be stronger, infinitely stronger, in
demanding our own rights, if we show a determination to allow no wrong
among ourselves. Our example must not be quoted against us at any time.
Especially must it not be allowed to harden into precedent. But this
can be prevented only by prompt correction, so that it shall be without
authority. Therefore, because I would have my country irresistible in
its demands, do I insist that it shall place itself above all suspicion.

The objection of Senators is too much like the old heathen cry, “Our
country, right or wrong.” Unhappy words, which dethrone God and exalt
the Devil! I am for our country with the aspiration that it may be
always right; but I am for nothing wrong. When I hear of wrong, I
insist at all hazards that it shall be made right, knowing that in this
way I best serve my country and every just cause.

This same objection assumes another form, equally groundless, when it
is said that I reflect upon our country and hurt its good name. Oh, no!
They reflect upon our country and hurt its good name who at the first
breath of suspicion fail to act. Our good name is not to be preserved
by covering up anything. Not in secrecy, but in daylight, must we live.
What sort of good name is that which has a cloud gathering about it?
Our duty is to dispel the cloud. Especially is this the duty of the
Senate. Here at least must be that honest independence which shall
insist at all times upon purity in the Government, no matter what
office-holders are exposed.

Again it is said that our good name cannot be compromised by these
suspicions. This is a mistake. Any suspicion of wrong is a compromise,
all the more serious when it concerns not only money, but the violation
of neutral obligations. And the actual fact is precisely according to
reason. Now while we debate, the national character is compromised at
Paris, at London, at Berlin, at Geneva, where all these things are
known as much as in this Chamber. But your indifference, especially
after this debate, will not tend to elevate the national character
either at home or abroad.

Such are some of the objections to which I reply. They are words only,
as Hamlet says, “Words, words, words.” From words let us pass to things.

* * * * *

Mr. President, I come now to the simple question before the Senate,
which I presented originally, whether there is not sufficient reason
for inquiry into the sale of arms during the French and German War. I
state the question thus broadly. The inquiry is into the sale of arms;
and this opens two questions,--first, of international duty; and,
secondly, of misfeasance in our officials, the latter involving what
may be compendiously called the money question.

My object is simply to show grounds for inquiry; and I naturally begin
with the rule of international duty.

In the discharge of neutral obligations a nation is bound to _good
faith_. This is the supreme rule, to which all else is subordinate.
This is the starting-point of all that is done. Without good faith
neutral obligations must fail. In proportion to the character of this
requirement must be the completeness of its observance. There can be
no evasion, not a jot. Any evasion is a breach, without the bravery
of open violation. But evasion may be sometimes by closing the eyes to
existing facts, or even by acting without sufficient inquiry. These
things are so plain and entirely reasonable as to be self-evident.

Now nothing can be more clear than that no neutral nation is permitted
to furnish arms and war material to a belligerent power. Such is a
simple statement of the law. I do not cite authorities, as I did it
amply on a former occasion.[5]

But there is an excellent author whom I would add to the list as worthy
of consideration, especially at this moment, in view of the loose
pretensions put forth in the debate. I refer to Mr. Manning, who, in
his Commentaries, thus teaches neutral duty:--

“It is no interference with the right of a third party to say that
he shall not carry to my enemy instruments with which I am to be
attacked. Such commerce is, on the other hand, a deviation from
neutrality,--or rather would be so, _if it were the act of a State_
and not of individuals.”[6]

The distinction is obvious between what can be done by the individual
and what can be done by the State. The individual may play the merchant
and take the risk of capture; but the State cannot play the merchant
in dealing with a belligerent. Of course, if the foreign power is at
peace, there is no question; but when the power has become belligerent,
then it is excluded from the market. So far as that power is concerned,
all sales must be suspended. The interdict is peremptory and absolute.
In such a case there can be no sale knowingly without mixing in the
war,--precisely as France mixed in the war of our Revolution in those
muskets sent by the witty Beaumarchais, which England resented by open
war.

And this undoubted principle of International Law was recognized by
the Secretary of War, when he directed the Chief of Ordnance not to
entertain any bids from E. Remington & Sons, who had stated that they
were agents of the French Government. In giving these orders he only
followed the rule of duty on which the country can stand without
question or reproach; but it remains to be seen whether persons under
him did not content themselves with obeying the order in letter only,
breaking it in spirit. I assume that the order was given in good faith.
Was it obeyed in good faith? Here we start with the admitted postulate
that it was wrong to sell arms to France.

But if this cannot be done directly, it is idle to say that it can be
done indirectly without a violation of good faith. If it cannot be done
openly, it cannot be done privily. If it cannot be done above-board, it
cannot be done clandestinely. It is idle to reject the bid of the open
agent of a belligerent power and then at once accept the bid of another
who may be a mere man-of-straw, unless after careful inquiry into his
real character.

Nothing can be clearer than the duty of the proper officers to consider
all bids in the sunlight of the conspicuous events then passing. A
terrible war was convulsing the Old World. Two mighty nations were in
conflict, one of which was already prostrate _and disarmed_. Meanwhile
came bids for arms and war material on a gigantic scale, on a scale
absolutely unprecedented. Plainly these powerful batteries, these
muskets by the hundred thousand, and these cartridges by the million
were for the disarmed belligerent and nobody else. It was impossible
not to see it. It is insulting to common-sense to imagine it otherwise.
Who else could need arms and war material to the amount of four million
dollars at once? Now it appears by the dispatches of the French
Consul-General at New York, which I find in an official document, that
on the 22d October, 1870, he telegraphed to the Armament Commission at
Tours:--

“The prices of adjudication have been 100,000 muskets at $9.30;
40,000 at $12.30; 100,000 at $12.25; 50,000,000 cartridges at
$16.30 the thousand: altogether, with the commission to Remington
and the incidental expenses, more than four million dollars.”

Such gigantic purchases, made at one time, or in the space of a few
days, could have but one destination. It is weakness to imagine
otherwise. Obviously, plainly, unquestionably, they were for the
disarmed belligerent. The telegraph each morning proclaimed the
constant fearful struggle, and we all became daily spectators. In the
terrible blaze, filling the heavens with lurid flame, it was impossible
not to see the exact condition of the two belligerents,--Germany always
victorious, France still rallying for the desperate battle. But the
officials of the Ordnance Bureau saw this as plainly as the people.
Therefore were they warned, so that every applicant for arms and war
material on a large scale was open to just suspicion. These officials
were put on their guard as much as if a notice or _caveat_ had been
filed at the War Department. In neglecting that commanding notice,
in overruling that unprecedented _caveat_, so far as to allow these
enormous supplies to be forwarded to the disarmed belligerent, they
failed in that proper care required by the occasion. If I said that
they failed in good faith, I should only give the conclusion of law on
unquestionable facts.

In the case of the _Gran Para_, Chief-Justice Marshall, after exposing
an attempt to evade our neutral obligations by an ingenious cover,
exclaimed, in words which he borrowed from an earlier period of our
history, but which have been often quoted since: “This would, indeed,
be a fraudulent neutrality, disgraceful to our own Government, and
of which no nation would be the dupe.”[7] I forbear at present to
apply these memorable words, which show with what indignant language
our great Chief-Justice blasted an attempt to evade our neutral
obligations. In calling it fraudulent he was not deterred by the petty
cry of a false patriotism, that his judgment might affect the good name
of our country. Full well he knew that national character could suffer
only where fraud is maintained.

I doubt much if the true rule can be laid down in better words than
those I quoted on a former occasion from the Spanish minister at
Stockholm, denouncing the sale of Swedish frigates.[8] He protested
against “arms and munitions furnished through _intermediate
speculators_, under pretence of not knowing the result,” which
he exhibited as an “act of hostility” and a “political scandal.”
According to this excellent protest, the sale is not protected from
condemnation merely by “intermediate speculators” and the “pretence
of not knowing the result.” And this is only according to undoubted
reason. It is simply a question of good faith; and if, taking into view
the circumstances of the case and the condition of the times, there
is reasonable ground to believe that “intermediate speculators” are
purchasing for a belligerent, then the sale cannot be made, nor will
any “pretence of not knowing the result” be of avail.

In harmony with this Spanish protest is the calm statement of a Joint
Committee of Congress, where this question of international duty is
treated wisely. I read from the report of Mr. Jenckes on the sale of
certain ironclads:--

“Perhaps the international feature of this transaction is the
most grave one for the consideration of Congress. It is a matter
of notorious public history that war was being carried on in the
years 1865 and 1866 between the Government of Spain, on the one
hand, and the Governments of Peru and Chili, on the other. During
the pendency of hostilities, applications were made to obtain
possession of these vessels for one of the belligerents. If the
Government of the United States had been _privy_ to any arrangement
by which these vessels of war should be delivered to the agents
of a belligerent, either in our own ports or upon the high seas,
it would certainly have violated its international obligations.
Of course, when Congress authorized the sale of these vessels, it
was known that individuals had no use for them; yet it might have
assumed, as in the case of the Dunderberg and the Onondaga,”--

Now mark the words, if you please,--

“that the Executive Department would take care that any
individual who should purchase with a view to a resale to some
foreign power would not be permitted to violate the obligations of
the United States as a neutral nation.”[9]

Observe, if you please, the language employed. If the Government of the
United States had been “privy” to any arrangement for the delivery of
these vessels to the agents of a belligerent, it would certainly have
violated its international obligations. This is undoubtedly correct.
Then comes the assumption “that the Executive Department would _take
care_ that any individual who should purchase _with a view to a resale_
to some foreign power would not be permitted to violate the obligations
of the United States as a neutral nation.” Here again is the true rule.
The Executive is bound to take care that there shall be no sale with a
view to a resale in violation of neutral duties.

All this is so entirely reasonable, indeed so absolutely essential to
the simplest performance of international duty, that I feel humbled
even in stating it. The case is too clear. It is like arguing the
Ten Commandments or the Multiplication Table. International Law is
nothing but international morality for the guidance of nations. And
be assured, Sir, that interpretation is the truest which subjects the
nation most completely to the Moral Law. “Thou shalt not sell arms
to a belligerent,” is a commandment addressed to nations, and to be
obeyed precisely as that other commandment, “Thou shalt not steal.”
No temptation of money, no proffer of cash, no chink of “the almighty
dollar,” can excuse any departure from this supreme law; nor can any
intervening man-of-straw have any other effect than to augment the
offence by the shame of a trick.

Here, Sir, I am sensitive for my country. I can imagine no pecuniary
profits, no millions poured into the Treasury, that can compensate for
a departure from that international honesty which is at once the best
policy and the highest duty. The dishonesty of a nation is illimitable
in its operation. How true are the words,--

“’Twill be recorded for a precedent;
And many an error, by the same example,
Will rush into the State: it cannot be.”[10]

The demoralization is felt not at home only. Whatever any nation does
is an example for other nations; whatever the Great Republic does is a
testimony. I would have that testimony pure, lofty, just, so that we
may welcome it when commended to ourselves; so that, indeed, it may be
a glorious landmark in the history of civilization.

Therefore do I insist that international obligations, especially when
war is raging, cannot be evaded, cannot be slighted, cannot be trifled
with. They are not only sacred, they are sacrosanct; and whoso lays
hands on them, whoso neglects them, whoso closes his eyes to their
violation, is guilty of a dishonesty which, to the extent of its
influence, must weaken public morals at home, while it impairs the
safeguards of peace with other nations and sets ajar the very gates of
War.

This question cannot be treated with levity, and waved out of sight
by a doubtful story. Even if Count Bismarck, adapting himself to the
situation, and anxious to avoid additional controversy, had declared
in conversation that he would take these arms on the banks of the
Loire,[11] this is no excuse for us. Our rule of duty is not found
in the courageous gayety of any foreign statesman, but in the Law of
Nations, which we are bound to obey, not only for the sake of others,
but for the sake of ourselves. All other nations may be silent; Count
Bismarck may be taciturn; but we cannot afford to cry, “Hush!” The evil
example must be corrected, and the more swiftly the better.

On this simple statement of International Law, it is evident that
there must be inquiry to see if through the misfeasance of officials
our Government has not in some way failed to comply with its neutral
duties. Subordinates in England are charged with allowing the escape of
the Alabama. Have any subordinates among us played a similar part? It
is of subordinates that I speak. Has the Government suffered through
them? Has their misfeasance, their jobbery, their illicit dealing,
compromised our country? Is there any ring about the Ordnance Bureau
through which our neutral duties have been set at nought? Here I might
stop without proceeding further. The question is too grave to be
blinked out of sight; it must be met on the law and the facts.

In this presentation I do not argue. The case requires a statement
only. Beyond this I point to the honorable example which our country
has set in times past. The equity with which we have discharged our
neutral obligations has been the occasion of constant applause. Mr.
Ward, the accomplished historian of the Law of Nations, and also
of a treatise on the “Rights and Duties of Belligerent and Neutral
Powers,” which Chancellor Kent says “exhausted all the law and learning
applicable to the question,”[12] wrote in 1801, four years after
Washington’s retirement:--

“Of the great trading nations, America is almost the only one that
has shown consistency of principle. The firmness and thorough
understanding of the Laws of Nations, which during this war [the
French Revolution] she has displayed, must forever rank her high in
the scale of enlightened communities.”[13]

Another English writer, Sir Robert Phillimore, author of the
comprehensive work on International Law, speaks of the conduct of the
United States as, “under the most trying circumstances, marked not only
by a perfect consistency, but by _preference for duty and right_ over
interest and the expediency of the moment.”[14] Then again, in another
place, the same English authority, after a summary of our practice and
jurisprudence in seizing and condemning vessels captured in violation
of neutrality, declares:--

“In these doctrines a severe, _but a just_, conception of the
duties and rights of neutrality appears to be embodied.”[15]

An excellent French writer on International Law, Baron de Cussy,
remarks, on mentioning our course with reference to a steamer purchased
by Prussia in its war with Denmark in 1849,--

“It affords a genuine proof of respect for the obligations of
neutrality.”[16]

American loyalty to neutral duties received the homage of the eminent
orator and statesman Mr. Canning, who, from his place in Parliament,
said:--

“If I wished for a guide in a system of neutrality, I should
take that laid down by America in the days of the Presidency of
Washington and the Secretaryship of Jefferson.”[17]

These testimonies may be fitly concluded by the words of Mr. Rush, so
long our Minister in England, who records with just pride the honor
accorded to our doctrines on neutral duties:--

“They are doctrines that will probably receive more and more
approbation from all nations as time goes on, and continues to
bring with it, as we may reasonably hope, further meliorations to
the code of war. They are as replete with international wisdom as
with American dignity and spirit.…

“Come what may in the future, we can never be deprived of this
inheritance. It is a proud and splendid inheritance.”[18]

Such is the great and honest fame already achieved by our Republic
in upholding neutral duties. No victory in our history has conferred
equal renown. Surely you are not ready to forget the precious
inheritance. No, Sir, let us guard it as one of the best possessions
of our common country,--guard it loyally, so that it shall continue
without diminution or spot. Here there must be no backward step. Not
_Backward_, but _Forward_, must be our watchword in the march of
civilization.

* * * * *

I am now brought to that other branch of the subject which concerns
directly the conduct of our officials; and here my purpose is to
simplify the question. Therefore I shall avoid details, which have
occupied the Senate for days; and I put aside the apparent discrepancy
between the Annual Report of the War Department and the Annual Report
of the Treasurer, which has been satisfactorily explained on this
floor, so that this ground of inquiry is removed. I bring the case to
certain heads, which, taken together in their mass, make it impossible
for us to avoid inquiry, without leaving the Government or some of its
officials exposed to serious suspicion. Now, as at the beginning, I
make no accusation against any officer of our Government,--none against
the President, none against the Secretary of War; but I exhibit reasons
for the present proceeding.

The case naturally opens with the resolution of the Committee of the
French Assembly, asking the United States “to furnish the result of the
inquiry into the conduct of American officials who were suspected of
participating in the purchase of arms for the French Government during
the war.” This seems to have been adopted as late as February 9th last
past. At least it appears in the cable dispatch of that date.[19] From
this resolution three things are manifest: first, that the sale of arms
by our Government is occupying the attention of the French Legislature;
secondly, that American officials are suspected of participating in the
purchase for the French Government; and, thirdly, that it is supposed
that our Government has instituted an inquiry into the case.

This resolution is, I believe, without precedent. I recall no other
instance where a foreign legislative assembly has made any inquiry
into the conduct of the officials of another country. If this were
done in an inimical or even a critical spirit, it might, perhaps,
be dismissed with indifference. But France, once in our history an
all-powerful ally, is now a friendly power, with which we are in the
best relations. Any movement on her part with regard to the conduct of
our officials must be received according to the rules of comity and
good-will. It cannot be disregarded. It ought to be anticipated. This
resolution alone would justify inquiry on our part.

Passing to evidence, I come to the telegraphic dispatch of Squire,
son-in-law and agent of Remington, actually addressed in French cipher
to the latter in France, under date of October 8, 1870. Though brief,
it is most important:--

“We have _the strongest influences_ working for us, which will use
all their efforts to succeed.”

Considering the writer of this dispatch, his family and business
relations with Remington, to whom it was addressed, it is difficult
to regard it except as a plain revelation of actual facts. It was
important that Remington should know the precise condition of things.
His son-in-law and agent telegraphs that “the strongest influences”
are at work for them. What can this mean? Surely here is no broker
or arms-merchant, engaged in the course of business. It is something
else,--plainly something else. What? That is the point for inquiry. Mr.
Squire is an American citizen. Let him be examined and cross-examined,
under oath. Let him disclose what he meant by “the strongest
influences.” He could not have intended to deceive his father-in-law,
and puff himself. He was doubtless in earnest. Did he deceive himself?
On this he is a witness. But until those words are so far explained
as to show that they do not point to officials, the natural inference
is that it was on them that he relied,--that they were “the strongest
influences” by which the job was to be carried through; for, of course,
it was a job which he announced.

It cannot be doubted that this dispatch of Mr. Squire by itself alone
is enough to justify inquiry. Without the resolution of the French
Assembly, and without the supplementary testimony to be adduced, it
throws a painful suspicion upon our officials, which should compel them
to explain.

But the letter of Mr. Remington, already adduced,[20] carries this
suspicion still further, by adding his positive testimony that he
dealt with the Government. Before referring again to this testimony,
it is important to consider the character of the witness; and here we
have the authentication of the Secretary of War, who has recommended
and indorsed him, in a formal paper to be used in France. Others may
question the statements of Mr. Remington, but no person speaking for
the Secretary will hesitate to accept them. If the testimony of the
Secretary needed support, it would be found in the open declarations
on this floor by the Senator from New York [Mr. CONKLING], and in the
following letter, which the Senator dated from the Senate Chamber
during the recess, when notoriously the Senate was not in session:--

“SENATE CHAMBER,

“WASHINGTON, D. C., November 17, 1871.

“MY DEAR SIR,--I learn with surprise that your personal and
commercial situation and the good name of the house of Remington &
Sons have been questioned. Having known your father and sons for
many years, having lived within a stone-throw, so to say, of your
house for a number of years, and being one of the Senators of your
State, I cannot hesitate to give you my testimony relative to the
accusations that have, as has been told me, been brought against
you in France.

“As to what concerns personal situation, importance of affairs,
success, solvency, wealth, and fidelity to the Government of the
United States, your house has for a long time occupied a front
rank, not only in the State of New York, but also in the Union.

“The allegation that you lack experience as a manufacturer of
arms, or in anything that can, as a man of business, entitle
you to respect, is, I can affirm in all sincerity, destitute of
foundation, and must proceed from ignorance or malignity.

“Sincerely, your obedient servant,

“ROSCOE CONKLING.

“Mr. SAMUEL REMINGTON.”

Thus does the Senator from New York vouch for the “good name” of Mr.
Remington.

Thus introduced, thus authenticated, and thus indorsed, Mr. Remington
cannot be rejected as a witness, especially when he writes an official
letter to the Chairman of the French Armament Commission at Tours. You
already know something of that letter, dated at New York, December 13,
1870. My present object is to show how, while announcing his large
purchases of batteries, arms, and cartridges, he speaks of dealing with
Government always, and not even with any intermediate agent.

MR. CONKLING. Will the Senator allow me there one moment, as he has
referred to me?

MR. SUMNER. Certainly.

MR. CONKLING. He is engaged at this point, if I understand him
aright, in supporting Mr. Remington in his character; and as the
document from which he made the translation of my letter also
contains stronger fortification in aid of the Senator and of Mr.
Remington, I beg to call attention to it. The Senator might refer
not only to my letter, but to letters written by Governor Hoffman,
ex-Governor Horatio Seymour, Edwin D. Morgan, late a member of this
body, General John A. Dix, not unknown here, and other citizens of
the State of New York, who certify, I believe in somewhat stronger
terms than those I employed, to the probity and standing of Mr.
Remington.

MR. SUMNER. I am obliged to the Senator for the additional testimony
that he bears. It only fortifies the authority of Mr. Remington,
which was my object. I took the liberty of introducing the letter
of the Senator, because he is among us, and had vouched for Mr.
Remington personally. I gladly welcome the additional evidence which
the Senator introduces. It is entirely in harmony with the case that
I am presenting. I wish to show how Mr. Remington was regarded by
the Senator, by the Secretary of War, and by other distinguished
citizens,--so that, when he writes an official letter to the Chairman
of the Arms Committee of Tours, he cannot be rejected as a witness.

The letter is long, and early in it the writer alludes to a credit from
France and certain instructions with regard to it, saying:--

“This we could not do, as a considerable portion had been _already
paid out to the Government_.”

Then coming to the purchase of breech-loading Springfield muskets, he
writes:--

“_The Government_ has never made but about seventy-five thousand,
all told; and forty thousand is the greatest number _they think it
prudent to spare_.”

In order to increase the number he proposed an exchange of his own, and
here he says:--

“This question of an exchange, _with the very friendly feeling I
find existing to aid France_, I hope to be able to procure more.”

Where was “the very friendly feeling existing to aid France”? Not among
merchants, agents, or brokers. This would hardly justify the important
declaration with regard to a feeling which was so efficacious.

Then comes the question of cartridges; and here the dealings with the
Government become still more manifest:--

“Cartridges for these forty thousand will in a great measure
require to be made, as _the Government_ have but about three
millions on hand. But _the Government_ has consented to allow the
requisite number, four hundred for each gun, to be made, and the
cartridge-works have had orders, given yesterday, to increase
production to the full capacity of works.”

Observe here, if you please, the part performed by the Government,--not
only its consent to the manufacture, but the promptitude of this
consent. This was not easily accomplished, as the well-indorsed witness
testifies:--

“This question of making the cartridges _at the Government works_
was a difficult one to get over. But it is done.”

Naturally difficult; but the agent of France overcame all obstacles.
Then as to price:--

“The price _the Government_ will charge for the guns and cartridges
will be ----, or as near that as possible.”

Always “the Government”! Then comes another glimpse:--

“The forty thousand guns cannot all be shipped immediately, as they
are distributed _in the various arsenals throughout the country_.”

That is, the Government arsenals.

Then appears one of our officials on the scene:--

“_The Chief of Ordnance_ thinks it may take twenty to thirty days
before all could be brought in.”

Then again the witness reports:--

“_The Chief of Ordnance_ estimates the cost of the arms, including
boxing and expense of freight to bring them to New York, at $20.60
currency.”

Then as to the harness:--

“_The Government_ have not full complete sets to the extent of
twenty-five hundred after selling the number required for the fifty
batteries.”

Always “the Government”!

Then, after mentioning that some parts of the harness are wanting, he
says:--

“I have made arrangements to have this deficiency made good by
either _the Government_ or by outside persons.”

But the Government does all it can:--

“In the mean time _the Government_ have ordered the harness to be
sent here immediately.”

Then at the close the witness says:--

“I forgot to say _the Government_ have no Spencer rifles, having
never had but a small number, and all of those you have bought.”

And he adds--

that “they have from three to four thousand transformed
Springfields,” which he “may think best to take _after
examination_,”--

showing again his intimate dealings with the Government.

Such is the testimony of Mr. Remington, the acknowledged agent of
France. It is impossible to read these repeated allusions to “the
Government” and “the Chief of Ordnance” without feeling that the
witness was dealing directly in this quarter. If there was any
middleman, he was of straw only; but a man-of-straw is nobody. If Mr.
Remington’s character were not vouched so completely, if he did not
appear on authentic testimony so entirely above any misrepresentation,
if he were not elevated to be the model arms-dealer, this letter, with
its numerous averments of relations with the Government, would be of
less significance. But how can these be denied or explained without
impeaching this witness?

But Mr. Remington is not without important support in his allegations.
His French correspondent, M. Le Cesne, Chairman of the Armament
Committee, has testified in open court that the French dealt directly
with the Government. He may have been mistaken; but his testimony shows
what he understood to be the case. The Senator from Missouri [Mr.
SCHURZ] has already called attention to this testimony, which he cited
from a journal enjoying great circulation on the European continent,
“L’Indépendance Belge.” The Senator from Vermont, [Mr. EDMUNDS,] not
recognizing the character of this important journal, distrusted the
report. But this testimony does not depend upon that journal alone. I
have it in another journal, “Le Courrier des États-Unis,” of October
27, 1871, evidently copied from a Parisian journal, probably one of the
law journals, where it is given according to the formal report of a
trial, with question and answer:--

“THE PRESIDING JUDGE. Did not this indemnity of twenty-five cents
represent certain material expenses, certain disbursements,
incidental expenses?

“M. LE CESNE. We could not admit these expenses; _for we had an
agreement with the American Federal Government, which had engaged
to deliver free on board all the arms on account of France_.”

Now I make no comment on this testimony except to remark that it is in
entire harmony with the letter of Mr. Remington, and that beyond all
doubt it was given in open court under oath, and duly reported in the
trial, so as to become known generally in Europe. The position of M. Le
Cesne gave it authority; for, beside his recent experience as Chairman
of the Arms Committee, he is known as a former representative in the
Assembly from the large town of Havre, and also a resident for twenty
years in the United States. In confirmation of the value attached to
this testimony, I mention that my attention was first directed to it by
Hon. Gustavus Koerner, of Illinois, Minister of the United States at
Madrid, under President Lincoln.

To this cumulative testimony I add that already supplied by our
Minister at Berlin, under date of January 7, 1871, and published by
the Department of State, where it is distinctly said that “recently
rifled cannon and ammunition have been furnished to the French in
enormous quantities, not only by private American traders, _but by
the War Department at Washington_.” This I have already adduced under
another head.[21] It is mentioned now to show how the public knowledge
of Europe was in harmony with the other evidence.

There is another piece of testimony, which serves to quicken suspicion.
It is already admitted by the Secretary of War, that, after refusing
Mr. Remington because he was an agent of France, bids were accepted
from Thomas Richardson, who was in point of fact an attorney-at-law
at Ilion, and agent and attorney of Mr. Remington. But the course of
Mr. Remington, and his relations with this country attorney, are not
without official illustration. Since this debate began I have received
a copy of a law journal of Paris, “Le Droit, Journal des Tribunaux,”
of January 18, 1872, containing the most recent judicial proceedings
against the French Consul-General at New York. Here I find an official
report from the acting French Consul there, addressed to the French
Minister of Foreign Affairs, under date of August 25, 1871, where a
fact is described which was authenticated at the Consulate, being an
affidavit or deposition before a notary by a clerk of Mr. Remington, on
which the report remarks:--

“This declaration establishing that this manufacturer caused the
books of his house to be recopied three times, and in doing so
altered the original form.”

The Report adds:--

“It is in this document that mention is made of the character, I
might say criminal, which the name of Richardson appears to have
assumed in the affairs of Mr. Remington.”

After remarking that the witness who has thus testified has exposed
himself to the penalties of perjury, being several years of
imprisonment, the Report proceeds:--

“You see from this that the operations of Mr. Remington give only
too much of a glimpse of the most audacious frauds.”

Here is testimony tending at least to stimulate inquiry: Mr.
Remington’s books altered three times, and the name of Richardson
playing a criminal part. I quote this from an official document, and
leave it.

* * * * *

Here, then, are six different sources of testimony, all prompting
inquiry: first, the resolution of a committee of the French Assembly,
showing suspicion of American officials; secondly, the cable dispatch
of Squire, son-in-law and agent of Mr. Remington, declaring that “we
have the strongest influences working for us, which will use all their
efforts to succeed”; thirdly, the letter of Mr. Remington, reporting,
in various forms and repetitions, that he is dealing with the American
Government; fourthly, the testimony of M. Le Cesne, the Chairman of
the French Armament Committee, made in open court and under oath, that
the French “had an agreement with the American Federal Government,
which had engaged to deliver free on board all the arms on account
of France”; fifthly, the positive declaration of the London “Times”
in the face of Europe, and reported by our Minister at Berlin, that
rifled cannon and ammunition had been furnished to the French in
enormous quantities by the War Department at Washington; and, sixthly,
the testimony of a clerk of Mr. Remington, authenticated by the French
Consul-General at New York, that Mr. Remington had altered his books
three times, and also speaking of the criminal character of Richardson
in the affairs of Mr. Remington. On this cumulative and concurring
testimony from six different sources is it not plain that there must
be inquiry? The Senate cannot afford to close its eyes. The resolution
of the committee of the French Assembly alone would be enough; but
reinforced as it is from so many different quarters, the case is
irresistible. Not to inquire is to set at defiance all rules of decency
and common-sense.

* * * * *

To these successive reasons I add the evidence, which has been much
discussed, showing a violation of the statute authorizing the sale of
“the old cannon, arms, and other ordnance stores, now in possession
of the War Department, which are damaged or otherwise unsuitable for
the United States military service or for the militia of the United
States,”[22]--inasmuch as stores were sold which were not “damaged”
or “otherwise unsuitable.” I think no person can have heard the
debate without admitting that here at least is something for careful
investigation. The Senator from Missouri has already exposed this
apparent dereliction of duty, which in its excess ended in actually
disarming the country, so as to impair its defensive capacity. One of
the crimes of the Cabinet of Mr. Buchanan on the eve of the Rebellion
was that the North had been disarmed. It is important to consider
whether, in the strange greed for money or in the misfeasance of
subordinates, something similar was not done when good arms were sold
to France. The Chief of Ordnance, in his last Annual Report, which will
be found in the Report of the Secretary of War, makes the following
statement:--

“Now there are less than ten thousand breech-loading muskets in the
arsenals for issue. This number of muskets is not half sufficient
to supply the States with the muskets they are now entitled to
receive under their apportionment of the permanent appropriation
for arming and equipping the militia.”

Why, then, were breech-loading muskets exchanged for French gold? The
Chief of Ordnance then proceeds:--

“This Department should, as soon as possible, be placed in a
condition to fill all proper requisitions by the States upon
it, and should also have on hand in store a large number of
breech-loading muskets and carbines to meet any emergency that may
arise.”

But these very breech-loading muskets have gone to France. The Chief of
Ordnance adds:--

“Ten years ago the country felt that not less than a million of
muskets should be kept in store in the arsenals.”[23]

Why was not this remembered, when the arsenals were stripped to supply
France?

This important testimony speaks for itself. It is not sufficient to
recount against it the arms actually in the national arsenals. The
Chief of Ordnance answers the allegation by his own statements. He
regrets the small number of breech-loading muskets on hand, and refers
as an example to the standard ten years ago, when it was felt that a
million of muskets should be kept in store. It is not I who say this;
it is the Chief of Ordnance.

* * * * *

But these several considerations, while making inquiry imperative, do
not touch the money question involved. If in the asserted dealings
with a belligerent power, in violation of our neutral duties, there
is reason to believe corrupt practices of any kind, if there are
large sums of money that seem to be unaccounted for, then is there
additional ground for inquiry. Two questions are presented: first, as
to the violation of neutral duties; and, secondly, as to misfeasance of
subordinates involving money. In both cases the question, I repeat, is
of inquiry.

I do not dwell now on the sums lost by France in this business. They
are supposed to count by the million; but here I make no allegation. I
allude only to what appears elsewhere.

Unquestionably there are enormous discrepancies between the sums paid
by France for arms actually identified as coming from our arsenals and
the sums received by our Ordnance Bureau. In different reports these
discrepancies assume different forms. Not to repeat what has been said
on other occasions, I introduce the report of the acting French Consul
at New York, dated August 25, 1871, where, after showing that France
received only 368,000 muskets and 53,000,000 cartridges, while the
accounts with Mr. Remington enumerate a sum-total of 425,000 arms and
54,000,000 cartridges, it is said:--

“Whence comes this difference of 57,000 between the arms said to
be sent from here and those which were received in France, if in
fact the report of M. Riant signifies that they have only received
a total of 368,000? How explain that there were 425,000 put on the
bills of lading, and that the price of these was paid in New York?”

Now this discrepancy may be traced exclusively to French agents, so
that our subordinates shall not in any way be involved; but when we
consider all the circumstances of this transaction, it affords grounds
of inquiry.

But there is another witness on this head, not before mentioned in
this debate. I have here an extract from the official report of M. de
Bellonet, the French _Chargé d’Affaires_ at Washington, made to his
Government on this very question of losses down to a certain period.
His language is explicit: “The _dry loss_ to the Treasury of France
must have been about $1,500,000, or seven million francs.” This, be
it remembered, is only a partial report down to a certain period. Now
there is nothing in this report to charge this “dry loss” upon our
officials. It may be that it was all absorbed by the intermediate
agents. But taken in connection with the telegram of Squire and the
abundant letter of Mr. Remington, it leaves a suspicion at least
adverse to our officials.

Sir, let me be understood. I do not believe that any inquiry by any
committee can give back to France any of the enormous sums she has
lost. They have already gone beyond recall into the portentous mass
of her terrible sacrifices destined to be an indefinite mortgage on
that interesting country. Not for the sake of France or of any French
claimant do I propose inquiry, but for our sake, for the sake of our
own country. We read of that vast Serbonian bog “where armies whole
have sunk.” It is important to know if there is any such bog anywhere
about our Ordnance Office, where millions whole have sunk.

Investigation is the order of the day. Already in France, amid all
the anxieties of her distracted condition, these purchases of arms
have occupied much attention. As far back as last April, the “Soir,”
a journal at Versailles, where the Convention was sitting, called for
parliamentary inquiry. Its language was strong:--

“A parliamentary inquiry made in full day can alone establish
either the culpability of some or the perfect honorableness of
others.”

And the same French organ added:--

“The Chamber, in consigning this matter to its pigeonholes, refused
satisfaction to an awakened public morality.”

There is, then, in France an awakened public morality, as we hope there
is also in the United States, which demands investigation where there
is suspicion of corrupt practices. The French Chamber has instituted
inquiry.

* * * * *

Mr. President, as a Republic, we are bound to the most strenuous
care, so that our example may not in any way suffer. If we fail, then
does Republican Government everywhere feel the shock. For the sake of
others as well as of ourselves must we guard our conduct. How often do
I insist that we cannot at any moment, or in any transaction, forget
these great responsibilities! As no man “liveth to himself,” so no
nation “liveth” to itself; especially is this the condition of the
Great Republic. By the very name it bears, and by its lofty dedication
to the rights of human nature, is it vowed to all those things which
contribute most to civilization, keeping its example always above
suspicion. That great political philosopher, Montesquieu, announces
that the animating sentiment of Monarchy is “Honor,” but the animating
sentiment of a Republic is “Virtue.”[24] I would gladly accept this
flattering distinction. Therefore, in the name of that Virtue which
should inspire our Government and keep it forever above all suspicion,
do I move this inquiry.

On this whole matter the Senate will act as it thinks best, ordering
that investigation which the case requires. For myself I have but
one desire, which is, that this effort, begun in the discharge of a
patriotic duty, may redound to the good of our country, and especially
to the purity of the public service.

APPENDIX.

(A.) Page 15.

AUTHORITIES REFERRED TO IN SPEECH.

Wheaton, our great authority, in Lawrence’s edition, page 727, quotes
Vattel as laying down the rule of neutrality:--

“To give no assistance where there is no previous stipulation to
give it; nor voluntarily to furnish troops, arms, ammunition, or
anything of direct use in war.”

Vattel, as quoted, then says:--

“I do not say, _To give assistance equally_, but, _To give no
assistance_; for it would be absurd that a State should assist at
the same time two enemies.”--_Le Droit des Gens_, Liv. III. ch.
vii. § 104.

Another home authority, the late General Halleck, in his work on
International Law, after speaking of merchants engaged in selling
ships and munitions of war to a belligerent, says:--

“The act is wrong in itself, and the penalty results from his
violation of moral duty as well as of law. The duties imposed upon
the citizens and subjects flow from exactly the same principle as
those which attach to the government of neutral States.”

He then says, quoting another:--

“By these acts he makes himself personally a party to a war in
which, as a neutral, he had no right to engage, and his property is
justly treated as that of an enemy.”--_International Law_, p. 631.

Our other home authority, Professor Woolsey, in his work on
International Law, section 162, says:--

“International Law does not require of the neutral sovereign
that he should keep the citizen or subject within the same
strict lines of neutrality which he is bound to draw for
himself.”--_Introduction to the Study of International Law_, 2d
edition, p. 270.

That is, a citizen may sell ships and arms to a belligerent and take
the penalty, but the Government cannot do any such thing.

Another authority of considerable weight, Bluntschli, the German, lays
down the rule as follows:--

“The neutral State must neither send troops to a belligerent, nor
put ships of war at its disposal, nor furnish subsidies to aid it
in making the war.

“In coming _directly_ to the aid of one of the belligerent powers
by the sending of men or war material, one takes part in the
war.”--_Droit International Codifié_, tr. LARDY, art. 757, p. 381.

There is the true principle: “By the sending of men or war material one
takes part in the war.”

* * * * *

But the most important illustration of this question, and the only case
bearing directly on this point, which, according to my recollection,
has ever been diplomatically discussed, is one somewhat famous at the
time, known as that of the Swedish Frigate, which will be found in the
second series of “Causes Célèbres,” by Baron Charles de Martens.

It seems that in 1825, after ten years of peace, the Swedish Government
conceived the idea of parting with ships, some of them more than twenty
years old, as comparatively useless. A contract for their sale was made
with a commercial house in London. The Spanish Government, by their
minister at Stockholm, protested, on the alleged ground, that, though
nominally sold to merchants, they were purchased for the revolted
colonies in Mexico and South America, and in his communication, dated
the 1st of July, 1825, used the following energetic language, which I
translate:--

“And what would his Majesty the King of Sweden think, on the
supposition of the revolt of one of his provinces,--of the kingdom
of Norway for example,--if friendly and allied powers furnished the
rebels with arms, munitions, a fleet even, through intermediate
speculators, and under pretence of not knowing the result--

I translate literally,--

“intermediate speculators, and under pretence of not knowing the
result? Informed of these preparations, would the Cabinet of
Stockholm wait till the steel and the cannon furnished to its
enemies had mown down its soldiers, till the vessels delivered to
the rebels had annihilated its commerce and desolated its coasts,
to protest against similar supplies, and to prevent them if
possible? And if the protests were rejected, independently of every
other measure, would it not raise its voice throughout Europe, and
at the courts of all its allies, against this _act of hostility_,
against this violation of the rights of sovereignty, and against
this _political scandal_?”--_Causes Célèbres_, Tom. II. pp. 472-73.

These are strong words, but they only give expression to the feelings
naturally awakened in a Power that seemed to be imperilled by such an
act.

In another communication the same minister said to the Swedish
Government:--

“It is the doctrine of irresponsibility which the Cabinet of
Stockholm professes with regard to the sale of these war vessels,
which excites the most lively representations on the part of the
undersigned.”--_Note of 15 July 1825_: Ibid., p. 480.

Mark the words, “the doctrine of irresponsibility.” Then, again, the
minister says in other words worthy of consideration at this moment:--

“The Swedish Government on this occasion, creating this new kind
of commerce, determined to furnish ships of war indiscriminately
to every purchaser, even to private individuals without
guaranty,--establishing, as it seems to indicate, that the
commercial benefits of these sales are for the State a necessity of
an order superior to political considerations the most elevated, as
to moral obligations the most respectable.”--_Note of 9 September,
1825_: Ibid., p. 486.

I ask if these words are not applicable to the present case? Did it
not become the Government of the United States at this time, when
making these large sales, almost gigantic, so that its suspicion was
necessarily aroused, to institute inquiry into the real character of
the purchaser? Was it not put on its guard? Every morning told us of
war unhappily raging in Europe. Could there be doubt that these large
purchases were for the benefit of one of the belligerents? Was our
Government so situated that for the sake of these profits it would
neglect political considerations called in this dispatch the most
elevated, as moral obligations the most respectable? Was it ready to
assume the responsibility characterized by the Spanish minister in a
case less plain, as “an act of hostility,” a “violation of the rights
of sovereignty,” a “political scandal”?

PARLIAMENTARY LAW ON THE APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEES OF THE
SENATE.

TWO PROTESTS AGAINST THE COMPETENCY OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE TO
INVESTIGATE THE SALE OF ARMS TO FRANCE; MARCH 26 AND 27, 1872.

March 26, 1872, Mr. Sumner appeared before the Committee to
investigate the sale of arms by the United States during the French
and German War, in response to a communication signed by the
chairman of the Committee requesting his attendance. After reading
this communication, Mr. Sumner proceeded to read and file a protest
in the following terms:--

PROTEST.

Personally, I object to no examination. Willingly would I submit to the
most searching scrutiny, not only in the present case, but in all my
public life. There is not an act, letter, or conversation at any time,
that I would save from investigation. I make this statement, because I
would not have the protest I deem it my duty to offer open to suspicion
that there is anything I desire to conceal or any examination I would
avoid.

But appearing before the Committee on an invitation which is in the
nature of a summons, to testify in the investigation originally moved
by me into the sale of arms to France, I am obliged to consider
my duty as a Senator. Personal inclinations, whatever they may be,
cannot be my guide. I must do what belongs to a Senator under the
circumstances of the case.

Before answering any questions, I am constrained to consider the
competency of the Committee which has summoned me. It is of less
importance what these questions may be, although there are certain
obvious limitations, to which I will allude at the outset.

* * * * *

The examination of a Senator by a Committee of the Senate on a matter
outside of the Senate, and not connected with his public duties, is
sustained by precedents,--as when Mr. Seward and Mr. Wilson were
examined with reference to the expedition of John Brown;[25] but any
examination with regard to his public conduct, and especially with
regard to a matter which he has felt it his duty to lay before the
Senate in the discharge of his public duties, is of very doubtful
propriety. In his public conduct a Senator acts on his responsibility,
under sanction of an oath, and the Constitution declares that “for any
speech or debate” he “shall not be questioned in any other place.” This
inhibition, while not preventing questions of a certain character,
must limit the inquiry; but the law steps forward with its own
requirements, according to which it is plain that a Senator cannot be
interrogated, first, with regard to his conference with other Senators
on public business, and, secondly, with regard to witnesses who have
confidentially communicated with him.

Referring to the most approved work on the Law of Evidence,--I mean
that of Professor Greenleaf,--we find under the head of “Evidence
excluded from Public Policy”[26] at least four different classes of
cases, which may enlighten us in determining the questions proper for
Senators.

1. Communications between a lawyer and client. And are not the
relations of Senators, in the discharge of their public duties, equally
sacred?

2. Judges and arbitrators enjoy a similar exemption with regard to
matters before them.

3. Grand jurors, embracing even the clerk and prosecuting officer,
cannot be examined on matters before them.

4. Transactions between the heads of Departments and their subordinate
officers are treated as confidential.

Plainly, the conferences of a Senator, in the discharge of his public
duties, cannot be less protected.

This rule is equally imperative with regard to witnesses who have
confidentially communicated with a Senator. Here again I quote
Professor Greenleaf, who quotes the eminent English judge of the close
of the last century, Lord Chief-Justice Eyre, as follows:--

“There is a rule which has universally obtained on account of its
importance to the public for the detection of crimes, that those
persons who are the channel by means of which that detection is
made should not be unnecessarily disclosed.”[27]

Then the learned professor proceeds:--

“All were of opinion that all those questions which tend to the
discovery of the channels by which the disclosure was made to
the officers of justice were, upon the general principles of the
convenience of public justice, to be suppressed; that all persons
in that situation were protected from the discovery.”[28]

These words are explicit, and nobody can question them.

I am led to make these remarks and adduce these authorities because,
perusing the testimony of Mr. Schurz, I find that he was interrogated
on these very matters; and since I, too, am summoned as a witness,
I desire to put on record my sense of the impropriety of such
questions. It is important that they should not become a precedent.
And here again I declare that I have nothing to conceal, nothing
that I would not willingly give to the world under any examination
and cross-examination; but I am unwilling to aid in the overthrow
of a rule of law which stands on unquestionable grounds of public
policy. Especially is it important in the Senate, where, without
such protection, a tyrannical majority might deter a minority from
originating unwelcome inquiries.

* * * * *

From these preliminaries I proceed to consider the competency of the
present Committee. Requested as a Senator to appear before you, I deem
it my duty to protest against the formation and constitution of the
Committee as contrary to unquestionable requirements of Parliamentary
Law; and I ask the Committee to receive this protest as my answer to
their letter of invitation. I make this more readily because in my
speech in the Senate, February 28, 1872, entitled “Reform and Purity in
Government, Neutral Duties, Sale of Arms to Belligerent France,”[29]
I have set forth what moved me to the inquiry, being grounds of
suspicion, which, in my judgment, rendered the most searching inquiry
by a committee friendly to inquiry absolutely necessary.

The general parliamentary rule in the appointment of special committees
requires that they should be organized so as to promote the business
or inquiry for which the committee is created. This requirement
is according to obvious reason, and is sustained by parliamentary
authorities. In familiar language, a proposition is committed to its
friends and not to its enemies.

In illustration of this rule, we are told that members who have spoken
directly against what is called “the body of the bill,” meaning, of
course, the substance of the inquiry, are not expected to serve on the
committee, but, should they be so nominated, to decline. Their presence
on a committee is not unlike participation in a trial by a judge or
juror interested in the result.

Very little reflection shows how natural is this rule as an instrument
of justice. The friends of a measure, or the promoters of an inquiry,
though in the majority on a committee, can do no more than adduce
evidence that exists, so that the business cannot suffer through
them,--while those unfriendly to a measure, or hostile to an inquiry,
may, from lukewarmness, or neglect, or possible prejudice, fail to
present the proper evidence or recognize its just value, so that the
business will suffer. In legislation, plainly, those who believe an
inquiry necessary are the most proper persons to conduct it, and being
so, they are selected by Parliamentary Law.

This rule may be traced in the history of Parliament anterior to the
settlement of our country. The ancient statement was simply that “those
against the bill should not be on the committee.” The meaning of the
rule is distinctly seen in historic cases, which I proceed to adduce.

In the House of Commons, as far back as November 7, 1601, in the
reign of Queen Elizabeth, on the commitment of a bill relating to
misdemeanors, the entry in the Journal mentions that it was delivered
to a certain member, and then says, “and Mr. Serjeant Harris to be
_exempted out of the Committee_, because he spake against the body of
the Bill,” according to the ancient order in Parliament.[30] In other
words, a speech against a measure disqualified the learned member, so
that, according to the expressive words, he was “exempted out of the
Committee.”

Again, in the case of the commitment of a bill affecting the city of
London, which came up November 11, 1601, on the question whether the
members for London, known to be against the bill, could be of the
Committee, the rule of the House was stated in these positive words:
“That those against the Bill should be no Committees.” Of course, this
rule was not merely of _form_, but of _substance_. It meant that those
really against the measure were not proper for the Committee, all of
which appeared in the recorded debate and proceedings that ensued. A
leading member, Mr. Wiseman, said:--

“The House allowing of this Bill to be committed are, in my
opinion, to _disallow_ any that will be against the Body of the
Bill for being Committees.”

Sir Edward Hobby followed:--

“And for my own opinion, I think that he that is against the Body
of the Bill can be no Committee.”

The report then proceeds:--

“Then the Speaker stood up and said, ‘… All that will have a man
that hath been against the Body of the Bill to be a Committee, let
them show their opinions by saying _Yea_.’ And not one said _Yea_.
‘All that will not, say _No_.’ And all said _No_.”

I take this important precedent from Townshend’s “Historical
Collections: or, An Exact Account of the Proceedings of the Four Last
Parliaments of Q. Elizabeth,” pp. 208, 209. The same account is found
also in D’Ewes’s “Journals of all the Parliaments during the Reign of
Queen Elizabeth,” pp. 634-35.

Thus, on submission of the question by the Speaker, the House
unanimously decided that they would “not have a man that hath been
against the Body of the Bill to be a Committee.” According to the
report, “All said _No_”; and that unanimous “No” is the voice of
Parliamentary Law, repeated ever since. The phrase “against the Body
of the Bill” is strong and suggestive, showing the purpose to exclude
those who were unfriendly to the measure.

Following the history of the rule, we meet it again, as stated by
Hakewel in his “Modus tenendi Parliamentum,” published in 1671:--

“He that speaketh directly against the body of the bill may not
be named a committee; for he that would totally destroy will not
amend.”[31]

Here again is the declared purpose to save the measure from the hands
of enemies.

Then follows a case remarkable for words which have become familiar
in Parliamentary Law. It was that of Colonel Birch, who, February 11,
1677, brought into Parliament a Bill for Settling a Public Register for
Lands in the several Counties, and in his remarks said:--

“I begged you formerly _not to put the child to a nurse that cared
not for it_. For it was formerly committed to two lawyers, and the
thing was lost.”[32]

Here the commitment of a bill for reform in law to “two lawyers” was
condemned, because they were a nurse that did not care for it; and the
casual remark of the author of the bill has become historical. There
is good law as well as sense in his saying, that a child is not put
to a nurse that cares not for it. Parliamentary Law, in the creation
of special committees, always seeks those who care for the business,
whatever it may be. One against an inquiry, or believing that there is
no occasion for it, is repudiated by this rule, so just and benign, and
also so venerable with years.

The preparation of articles of impeachment against the Earl of Danby,
Lord High Treasurer in the reign of Charles the Second, December 21,
1678, presented the same rule in another aspect. It was no longer a
bill, but an inquiry or investigation, when the Speaker said:--

“No man, by the ancient rules of the House, is to be of a committee
of a _thing_ he is against.”[33]

Here the language is somewhat broadened, though in entire keeping with
the other cases. A man cannot be on a committee “of a _thing_ he is
against.” In other words, if he is against the inquiry for which a
committee is created, he cannot be on it. And here again good faith
requires that the rule should be observed not merely in form, but in
substance.

These cases were analyzed and adopted by Mr. Jefferson in his
authoritative “Manual”; so that they have become American Parliamentary
Law, as obligatory here as in England. Speaking always by their
essential reason, but with the weight of precedent also, they are not
less binding than if promulgated with an enacting clause.

Mr. Jefferson furnishes other and most important words of his own:--

“And when any member who is against the bill hears himself named of
its committee, _he ought to ask to be excused_.”[34]

This is the language of our Manual, declaring the duty of a member
who hears himself named of a committee on a bill he is against. Of
course the general rule is applicable to any other matter referred
to a committee. The words are, “he _ought_ to ask to be excused.” Of
course his continuance on the committee, or any attempt to exercise its
duties, is a violation of Parliamentary Law, unless you are ready to
discard this positive injunction.

Mr. Jefferson then adds, by way of illustration:--

“Thus, March 7, 1606, Mr. Hadley was, on the question being put,
excused from being of a committee, declaring himself to be against
the matter itself.”[35]

And our great authority declares that this is “a constant rule.”[36]

Such is Parliamentary Law; and Mr. Jefferson has answered in advance
the possible objection, that this is English and not American. After
saying, in his preface to the “Manual,” that the Senate has given to
these rules “the sanction of their approbation,” he announces “the
law of proceedings in the Senate as composed of the precepts of the
Constitution, the regulations of the Senate, and, where these are
silent, of _the rules of Parliament_.” Such, according to him, is
the law of our proceedings. The “Manual” which he presents he hopes
others may fill up, “_till a code of rules_ shall be formed for the
use of the Senate, the effects of which may be accuracy in business,
economy of time, order, uniformity, and impartiality.” The last word is
“_impartiality_,” which, doubtless, is a main object to be secured.

Any one disposed to neglect these rules will find a warning from Mr.
Jefferson. In his opening chapter he quotes these words from the famous
Speaker Onslow:--

“That these forms, as instituted by our ancestors, operated as a
check and control on the actions of the majority, and that they
were in many instances a shelter and _protection to the minority
against the attempts of power_.”

Mr. Jefferson follows this quotation by declaring “the forms and rules
of proceeding” to be “the only weapons by which the minority can defend
themselves,” and by which “the weaker party can be protected from those
irregularities and abuses which these forms were intended to check, and
which the wantonness of power is but too often apt to suggest to large
and successful majorities.”

Thus is the parliamentary rule which forbids a person unfriendly to the
business of the committee, whatever it may be, whether bill or inquiry,
from serving on the committee, one of those inhibitions by which public
business is promoted, by which impartiality is secured, and especially
by which a minority is shielded against the wantonness of power.

“The Congressional Globe” makes it easy to apply what has been said to
several of this Committee. Unless the law, as illustrated by ancient
cases, and adopted by Mr. Jefferson, is entirely neglected, unless
the rule so frequently enunciated is set at defiance or treated as a
sham, there are at least three serving on the Committee in violation
of Parliamentary Law. In undertaking to serve, they were undoubtedly
oblivious of the time-honored requirement, or did not appreciate its
stringency.

Not only every Senator, but the whole country has an immeasurable
interest in the preservation of those rules by which what Mr. Jefferson
justly calls “the wantonness of power” is restrained, and minorities
are protected against majorities. Any shock to them, as in the present
case, becomes a precedent by which liberty and justice suffer. As a
Senator appearing before this Committee at their request, I deem it my
duty to file this Protest, in the sincere hope, that, whatever may be
the result of the present inquiry, the open violation of Parliamentary
Law in the formation and constitution of the Committee will not be
permitted to become a precedent hereafter. When law is sacrificed,
individuals may for a moment seem to triumph, but it is at the cost of
a great safeguard for the good of all.

CHARLES SUMNER.

SENATE CHAMBER, March 26, 1872.

On motion of Mr. Carpenter, of the Committee, it was ordered that
a subpœna in regular form be issued to Mr. Sumner, returnable the
next day, to be served by the Sergeant-at-Arms; which was duly
issued and served.

March 27th, Mr. Sumner appeared, and, after the reading of the
subpœna, proceeded to read a second Protest.

SECOND PROTEST.

Since reading and filing my Protest yesterday, I have received by the
hands of the Sergeant-at-Arms a subpœna commanding me to appear before
this Committee. In answer to this subpœna, I now appear.

It is my duty to declare that my judgment as originally set forth in my
Protest is in no respect altered by this subpœna. I do not think the
Committee more competent to-day than yesterday. I still find several
occupying seats on the Committee in violation of an unquestionable rule
of Parliamentary Law. The record shows that they signalized themselves
in the Senate by open speech against the pending inquiry and those who
brought it forward, or, according to the language of the old rule,
“against the thing,” and therefore disqualified themselves as much as a
judge who has been counsel in a case, or a juror who has declared his
opinion beforehand. This disqualification is not founded on argument
or inference, but on peremptory rule, traced back many generations,
illustrated by numerous authorities, and constituting part of what Mr.
Jefferson calls the “code” for the government of the Senate, having, as
he says, “the sanction of their approbation.”

Besides the authorities which I cited yesterday, there are two others
from our own country, which I deem it my duty to adduce. The first
is that of Cushing’s “Lex Parliamentaria Americana” or “The Law and
Practice of Legislative Assemblies in the United States.” Here we
learn how completely a committee is placed by Parliamentary Law in the
hands of the mover, thus:--

“It became the established practice for the member upon whose
motion a committee had been ordered, to move the names of the
members to compose it,--being, of course, of his own selection:
his own name being among them, and perhaps the first named on the
list. If he felt any delicacy in moving his own name, the motion
might be made by some friend: as on the occasion of the appointment
of the committee to prepare articles of impeachment against Lord
Melville, which had been ordered on the motion of Mr. Whitbread,
that gentleman was first appointed one of the committee on the
motion of Lord Temple, and then on the motion of Mr. Whitbread
the other members of the committee (Lord Temple being one) were
appointed.”[37]

As this was a case of investigation, it is a precedent for us now. But
our Committee was constituted in a very different manner. Mr. Cushing
vindicates the practice of allowing the mover of a proposition himself
to nominate the committee for the consideration of the House, saying:--

“That the House, by adopting the resolution for the committee, has
signified its willingness that the subject should be so considered
or investigated; that the member nominating the committee must be
supposed to feel as strong an interest in the proper consideration
of the subject as any one, and also to possess or to be willing to
obtain the knowledge necessary to enable him to decide upon the
qualifications of the members he selects.”[38]

In this vindication the careful and elaborate author shows how
completely the early rule is recognized. The same learned authority,
while stating the English and American Parliamentary Law, shows how
the examination is conducted:--

“When an inquiry is instituted and an examination of witnesses
undertaken by the House in its inquisitorial capacity, it is
customary for the member on whose motion or suggestion the inquiry
has been engaged in, or for some of the members voting with him for
the inquiry, to take the lead in the examination of the witnesses,
… or, in other words, to examine the witnesses in chief.”[39]

Plainly, according to this usage, Mr. Schurz, and not Mr. Hamlin,
should take the lead and examine the witnesses in chief.

The other parliamentary authority to which I refer is Hon. R. M.
T. Hunter, former Speaker of the House of Representatives. In his
valedictory speech, March 3, 1841, this gentleman, who brought thought
and study to the discharge of his public duties, took occasion to
explain the principles governing the formation of committees, and
all must admit that he did it with a clearness and philosophy not
surpassed in parliamentary history. According to him, those having
the affirmative of a proposition should have the direction of the
committee. Speaking generally, he says:--

“The party upon which it naturally devolves to propose a question
ought to have the power, it would seem, to present its proposition
in the shape for which it is willing to be responsible; and as the
different parties hold the affirmative according to the nature of
the question, so ought the constitution of the committees to be
varied.”

Then, in language precisely applicable to the present case, the Speaker
says:--

“In committees of investigation it is equally clear that the
opposition, _who hold the affirmative_, should have the majority
and the power.”[40]

This instructive statement is in admirable harmony with the rule, as
declared in early times, that those “against the thing” cannot go on
the committee,--and that a measure, like a child, is not put to a nurse
that cares not for it. The old Parliamentarians were less philosophical
than the American Speaker, but each meant the same thing. The prime
object is opportunity and fair play for those bringing forward a
proposition, or holding the affirmative. A committee _organized to
sustain the negative_ is the very committee described as a nurse that
cares not for the child, and therefore is a committee not tolerated by
Parliamentary Law.

Thus from all quarters--beginning with the distant in time, embracing
Jefferson, the father of American Parliamentary Law, Cushing, its
most authoritative American expounder, and not forgetting an American
Speaker--proceeds concurring testimony to the parliamentary rule
requiring an inquiry to be placed in the hands of its friends;
especially is it necessary that the chairman, who directs the inquiry
and examines the witnesses, should be known as one of its friends.

Therefore I must be pardoned, if I renew my Protest against the
competency of the present Committee. I protest against it as
constituted in flagrant violation of Parliamentary Law; and I protest
especially against the acting Chairman, who undertakes to direct this
inquiry and to examine witnesses, as not coming within the conditions
established by rule, by usage, and by reason. The record shows that
he did not move the inquiry, nor did he coöperate with the mover, or
take any part in sustaining him, while in open speech he showed himself
“against the thing.” I object to the acting Chairman as to a judge or
juror disqualified to sit in a court.

I make this second Protest with infinite reluctance. But the Committee
leave me no alternative. In their invitation, in the nature of a
summons, and now in their subpœna, they compel me to declare my
objection to their competency. Seeing it as clearly as I do, and
feeling it as strongly as I do, I cannot avoid expressing it. If I do
so twice, it is because the Committee have laid me twice under this
obligation. Beyond that sentiment of duty which is with me a rule of
life, I am encouraged to this effort by the hope that, even if the
present Committee cannot be corrected in conformity with Parliamentary
Law, its incompetency is so clearly exposed that it will be powerless
hereafter as a precedent. If obliged to witness the present dishonor
of a time-honored rule, I would at least save this safeguard for the
future.

In thus declaring my profound sense of the wrong that has been
attempted, I do all in my power to maintain Parliamentary Law
inviolate. I regret that I cannot do more.

With this explanation, and yielding to the command of the Committee, I
offer myself for examination on matters proper for inquiry; but I do it
under protest.

CHARLES SUMNER.

SENATE CHAMBER, 27th March, 1872.

Mr. Carpenter moved that the two Protests be returned to Mr.
Sumner, as disrespectful to the Committee. On a subsequent day the
motion was withdrawn.

BOOKS ON THE FREE LIST.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE ON MOVING AN AMENDMENT TO A TARIFF BILL, MARCH
27, 1872.

On the question of concurrence in an amendment made in Committee of
the Whole relative to the free list, Mr. Sumner said:--

I move to amend that amendment by adding after the provision as to
books, as arranged alphabetically in the free list,--

Books in the ancient and foreign languages.

I have letters very often from learned professors in different parts of
the country, complaining of the cost of books that they are constrained
to purchase in order to carry on their studies and to enable them to
teach. This is the case with Greek professors, professors in all the
languages, ancient and modern. It is also the case with men of science,
who desire works in the Continental languages; they complain bitterly
of the expense to which they are put.

Now, if I can have the attention of the Senate one moment, I will
endeavor to show that these works cannot come in competition with
any books here at home. Certainly they cannot with regard to any
considerable interest. I think, if these could be put on the free
list, an essential service would be done; the revenue would lose very
little, and no considerable interest in our country would suffer. I
hope, therefore, there can be no question but that the Senate will
allow this to be adopted.

MR. MORRILL [of Vermont]. I trust this amendment will not be
adopted. It is evidently an old acquaintance of the Senate.
I think the Senator from Massachusetts has always moved it
whenever he has had an opportunity.

To the argument advanced by Mr. Morrill in support of this
objection,--namely, “that the school-books of America should be
American in character, and printed and published by American
publishers,”--Mr. Sumner replied:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--The argument of my friend is against English books,
and not books in ancient or foreign languages. At any rate, the chief
point of his argument was addressed to works in the English language.
He called our attention, for instance, to Smith’s “Dictionary of the
Bible,” an English work; and he knows well, that, as it is a recent
work, it is not on our free list, and the amendment which I move does
not touch it. My amendment concerns books in the ancient languages, and
in foreign languages, that is, in the languages of modern Europe; and
the single point of the Senator is school-books. Now I ask whether we
should not do all we can to make the school-books as cheap as possible?
Will the Senator put a protective duty on school-books?--make the child
with “shining morning face” as he goes to school pay a duty? I would
have the school-books as cheap as possible. But then how few are the
school-books that would come in under this provision?

My amendment reaches the large amount of works concerning science and
literature and jurisprudence in ancient and in foreign languages; and
why should these be subjected to a duty? Why should those scholars,
those enlightened professional men who import these books, be
subjected to this additional expense? Sir, I honor the man, whether of
scholarship, of science, or of a profession, who imports these works of
learning. He is a benefactor to his country. Every such work becomes
a fountain in the neighborhood: but I would not put a duty on that
fountain; I would unseal it; I would open it, and let it flow as amply
as possible.

MR. MORRILL [of Maine]. I should like to ask the Senator from
Massachusetts whether there are any books in foreign languages that
are not published in this country. Are not all the books in the
ancient languages published in this country?

MR. SUMNER. I beg to call the Senator’s attention to the boundless
annual literature of Germany, where the volumes are counted by the
thousand,--to the extensive literature of France, where the volumes are
counted by the thousand,--to the less ample literature of Spain and
Italy, with numerous publications, all of which, if imported, pay a
duty. Now I wish to encourage that importation.

MR. MORRILL. I understood the Senator’s argument to be in favor of
ancient books.

MR. SUMNER. It is also, certainly.

MR. MORRILL. My inquiry is, whether those books are not all
republished in this country.

MR. SUMNER. Not at all. For instance, take most of the considerable
works of scholarship in German, annually produced, bearing on the
classics; they are not republished in our country, but our professors
import them at cost. Then take another class of works, on science, in
the German language, in the French language,--I would say also in the
Italian language, for there are some excellent contributions to science
as well as to literature in the Italian language,--those, if imported,
pay a duty; but they do not come into competition with anything printed
here. Why, then, should they pay a duty? Why not encourage their
importation? Why not help the man of science, or the learned professor,
who aspires to enlarge his library in this way? I have said that I
regard such a person as a benefactor. I wish to give him my thanks, and
my help, if I can. The best help I can give him is to try to save him
from this additional tax.

Mr. Sumner’s Amendment was rejected,--Yeas 12, Nays not counted.

THE NASBY LETTERS.

INTRODUCTION TO THE COLLECTION,[41] APRIL 1, 1872.

Beyond the interest in these letters as another instance of a peculiar
literature,--illustrated by Major Jack Downing, Sam Slick, and
the genius of Hosea Biglow,--they have an historic character from
the part they performed in the war with Slavery, and in advancing
Reconstruction. Appearing with a certain regularity and enjoying
an extensive circulation, they became a constant and welcome ally.
Unquestionably they were among the influences and agencies by which
disloyalty in all its forms was exposed, and public opinion assured on
the right side. It is impossible to measure their value. Against the
devices of Slavery and its supporters, each letter was like a speech,
or one of those songs which stir the people. Therefore they belong to
the political history of this critical period.

Of publications during the war, none had such charm for Abraham
Lincoln. He read every letter as it appeared, and kept them all within
reach for refreshment. This strong liking illustrates his character,
and will always awaken an interest in the letters. An incident in my
own relations with him shows how easily he turned from care to humor.

I had occasion to see President Lincoln very late in the evening of
March 17th, 1865. The interview was in the familiar room known as
his office, and also used for cabinet meetings. I did not take leave
of him until some time after midnight, and then the business was not
entirely finished. As I rose, he said, “Come to me when I open shop
in the morning; I will have the order written, and you shall see it.”
“When do you open shop?” said I. “At nine o’clock,” he replied. At
the hour named I was in the same room that I had so recently left.
Very soon the President entered, stepping quickly with the promised
order in his hands, which he at once read to me. It was to disapprove
and annul the judgment and sentence of a court-martial in a case that
had excited much feeling. While I was making an abstract of the order
for communication by telegraph to the anxious parties, he broke into
quotation from Nasby. Finding me less at home than himself with his
favorite humorist, he said pleasantly, “I must initiate you,” and then
repeated with enthusiasm the message he had sent to the author: “For
the genius to write these things I would gladly give up my office.”

Rising from his seat, he opened a desk behind, and, taking from it a
pamphlet collection of the letters already published, proceeded to read
from it with infinite zest, while his melancholy features grew bright.
It was a delight to see him surrender so completely to the fascination.
Finding that I listened, he read for more than twenty minutes, and was
still proceeding, when it occurred to me that there must be many at
the door waiting to see him on graver matters. Taking advantage of a
pause, I rose, and, thanking him for the lesson of the morning, went
away. Some thirty persons, including Senators and Representatives, were
in the antechamber as I passed out.

Though with the President much during the intervening time before his
death, this was the last business I transacted with him. A few days
later he left Washington for City Point, on the James River, where he
was at the surrender of Richmond. April 6th I joined him there. April
9th the party returned to Washington. On the evening of April 14th the
bullet of an assassin took his life.

In this simple story Abraham Lincoln introduces Nasby.

CHARLES SUMNER.

WASHINGTON, April 1st, 1872.

ADVICE TO THE COLORED PEOPLE.

LETTER TO THE NATIONAL CONVENTION OF COLORED PEOPLE AT NEW ORLEANS,
APRIL 7, 1872.

WASHINGTON, April 7, 1872.

MY DEAR SIR,--In reply to your inquiry, I make haste to say, that, in
my judgment, the Colored Convention should think more of principles
than of men,--except so far as men stand for principles. Above all,
let them insist on the rights of their own much-abused and insulted
people.

It is absurd for anybody to say that he “accepts the situation,” and
then deny the equal rights of the colored man. If the “situation” is
accepted in good faith, it must be entirely,--including not merely
the abolition of Slavery and the establishment of equal suffrage,
but also all those other rights which are still denied or abridged.
There must be complete equality before the law, so that in all
institutions, agencies, or conveniences, created or regulated by law,
there can be no discrimination on account of color, but a black man
shall be treated as a white man.

In maintaining their rights, it will be proper for the Convention to
invoke the Declaration of Independence, so that its principles and
promises shall become a living reality, never to be questioned in
any way, but recognized always as a guide of conduct and a governing
rule in the interpretation of the National Constitution, being in the
nature of a Bill of Rights preceding the Constitution.

It is not enough to “proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto
all the inhabitants thereof.” Equality must be proclaimed also; and
since both are promised by the great Declaration, which is a national
act, and as from their nature they should be uniform throughout the
country, both must be placed under the safeguard of national law.
There can be but one liberty and one equality, the same in Boston and
New Orleans, the same everywhere throughout the country.

The colored people are not ungenerous, and therefore will incline to
any measures of good-will and reconciliation; but I trust no excess
of benevolence will make them consent to any postponement of those
equal rights which are still refused. The disabilities of colored
people, loyal and long-suffering, should be removed before the
disabilities of former Rebels; or at least the two removals should go
hand in hand.

It only remains that I should say, “Stand firm!” The politicians will
then know that you are in earnest, and will no longer be trifled
with. Victory will follow soon, and the good cause be secure forever.

Meanwhile accept my best wishes for the Convention, and believe me,
dear Professor,

Faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

TO PROFESSOR JOHN M. LANGSTON, WASHINGTON.

DIPLOMATIC AGENTS OF THE UNITED STATES NOT TO ACCEPT GIFTS FROM FOREIGN
POWERS.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, MAY 2, 1872.

Mr. Cameron, having moved to take up a joint resolution reported by
him from the Committee on Foreign Relations, “permitting certain
diplomatic and consular officers of the United States in France to
accept testimonials from the Emperor of Germany for their friendly
services toward the subjects of the Emperor during the war between
France and Germany,”--Mr. Sumner promptly protested:--

I must object to it with my whole soul. I consider it a most vicious
proposition, utterly untenable. The Constitution of the United States
says:--

“No person holding any office of profit or trust under them [the
United States] shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept
of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever,
from any king, prince, or foreign State.”

Not even from the German Empire. Congress has followed one rule from
the beginning, I believe,--never to allow its diplomatic agents to
receive anything from a foreign power. It has allowed its naval
officers, who have rendered some humane service at sea to the subjects
of a foreign power, to receive some reward or recognition, some
honor, some compliment; but it has never allowed any person in its
diplomatic service to receive any such reward, honor, or compliment.
I think the Senate will see that this rule proceeds on a ground from
which we cannot depart. It is, that our representatives abroad must be
kept always above all suspicion of acting under foreign influence, or
the temptation of foreign reward. Nor should we, Sir, be gratified,
I think, to see these representatives abroad wearing at their
button-holes the insignia of any foreign power.

I hope, Sir, the Senate will not take up this matter again. It ought to
be allowed to drop out of sight.

The matter was dropped.

PRESERVATION OF THE PARK AT WASHINGTON.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, MAY 15, 1872.

The Senate having under consideration a bill from the House
confirming a grant by the City Council of Washington of a site for
a railway dépôt in the public park, Mr. Sumner said:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--To my mind this bill is injudicious; and in saying this
I give an opinion reached after the most careful consideration of it in
the Committee. I think it ought not to be adopted by the Senate. I say
this with reluctance, for I sympathize keenly with every improvement
and with every facility afforded to this growing and beautiful
metropolis; and may I say, also, I feel a personal sympathy with the
distinguished citizen of Pennsylvania particularly interested in this
measure? And yet, approaching its consideration with those biases in
its favor, I am bound to conclude against it.

Sir, I do not think that this privilege ought to be granted, and my
reason is precise and specific. It proposes to take a considerable
section of land, which, if you look on the map, you will see properly
belongs to the Park of Washington. I am unwilling, at this early period
in the history of this metropolis, to begin by cutting out a slice
from this inclosure set apart for the future. If you do it now, where
are you to stop? Will you not be called to cut out another slice next
year, or in five years,--and may not the Park be reduced from that form
and those proportions it promises to enjoy? This metropolis is now at
its beginning, and yet doubling in a decade. During the last ten years
its population has multiplied twofold; and in the coming ten years
there is every reason to believe that the development will be as large,
if not larger. Of course with the increase of population is the demand
for a park, especially in the central situation which that enjoys. I
use the language of another, when I say that parks are the lungs of
a great city; but where will be the lungs of this metropolis, if you
begin now to reduce the Park? Rather should we sacredly keep it all
intact, so that hereafter, when you and I, Sir, have passed away, and
this metropolis has grown to a grandeur and beauty which imagination
cannot now conceive, that Park may remain in its entirety, a blessing
to the people, for which they themselves in turn will bless us.

Sir, I was born in a city which has the enjoyment of such a blessing.
There is in Boston what is known as The Common, set apart in the very
earliest days of the old town, when it was in fact what the name
implies,--a common for the pasturage of cattle; but, though often
assailed, it has been preserved untouched. Railroad corporations and
other companies have tried in vain to obtain a corner from it. The
jealous city fathers have saved that beautiful piece of earth, till
now it is the first treasure of Boston,--unless we except her common
schools, where all are equal before the law. I have often thought
what would have ensued if some time ago, yielding to corporation
pressure in its various forms, the city had consented to sacrifice that
beautiful inclosure. There it is, the very apple of the eye to Boston;
and nobody now fears that it will be diminished by a foot.

And should not Washington have a similar possession? Are you
willing, Sir, now at this early moment of her history, when she is
just beginning to grow, or rather when her growth is just beginning
to be apparent, to despoil her of this unquestionable attraction,
where the useful and the beautiful commingle? I think, Sir, you will
act improvidently, if you do so. I think you will act against the
best interests of the city, whether you look at health, beauty, or
enjoyment; for a park ministers to all these.

Therefore, Sir, would I keep it intact. By no consent of Congress
would I allow any business interest or disturbing railroad company
to fasten itself upon this inclosure. They should be excluded; and
when I say this, I would not carry them off far. Let them plant their
stations just the other side. They will then be perhaps a third of a
mile from Pennsylvania Avenue, traversing the centre of population
with conveniences such as railroads in no other city enjoy. With those
open to them, why should we allow them to enter our pleasure-grounds?
If there were no proper place without going a long distance, a mile or
two miles, there would be some reason, perhaps, for entertaining this
question; but when I consider the facilities which they may enjoy only
the other side of the Park line, with land there cheap and easy to be
had, I am astonished that any one can be willing to sacrifice the Park
simply to bring them a few rods nearer Pennsylvania Avenue.

And this brings me to the question of travel on the Avenue. If you put
a railway station as is proposed, you will bring on the Avenue all that
glut and accumulation of carriages and wagons always concentrated about
the terminus of a great line of travel. I think it will be injurious to
the Avenue. That alone would be a reason with me against the bill.

But as often as I think of the question, I come back to the Park,
which, say what you will, is destined to be one of the most important
possessions of this metropolis, and for the special enjoyment of
the people. They will enjoy this Capitol, for it is beautiful to
behold,--also the other public edifices, some of them excellent in
style and grateful to the eye; but nothing of all these will be what
we may expect that Park to be,--a place where the young and old will
resort of an evening to enjoy innocent recreation and congenial
society, while the open air or the opportunities of exercise impart
to them that best blessing, health. Sir, that Park should not be
sacrificed; and if you have any doubt, let me lay before you the
testimony of another place. I have already cited Boston; I now call
your attention to Philadelphia. You know the remarkable park which
has been opened there. I stopped a day in Philadelphia last summer,
on my way home, especially to see and enjoy this magnificent resort;
and I was well rewarded. I beheld the most beautiful park, certainly
in its promise, on this continent; and I doubt if there is one even in
the European world of equal promise. But no one can enter its grounds
without annoyance and trouble from the railroad-crossings, and the
perpetual sound of the steam-engine with its shrill whistle, so little
in harmony with pleasure-grounds.

It requires no scientific knowledge, no practical acquaintance with
railroads, to see that those crossings are a positive nuisance, and
that the hospitable park set apart for the population of a mighty city,
and destined to be one of the most beautiful objects of the civilized
world, actually suffers from the nuisance. I appeal to Senators who
have visited it; I know that there is not one who will say that I am
not right. There is not one who has ever entered those grounds, not
even the Senator from Pennsylvania who pioneers this bill, that will
not say he regrets those railroad-crossings and wishes them out of
the way. But I shall not rely upon the authority of the Senator or
my own testimony. I have in my hand the last annual report of the
Commissioners, and I wish the Senate to hear what they say:--

“At an early period of their organization the Commissioners
addressed themselves to the solution of the very difficult problem
of how to attain the best approaches to the Park, and they have not
at any time ceased to give that matter their earnest attention. If
a former generation could have foreseen”--

Now see, Senators, how this applies to the present case,--

“If a former generation could have foreseen that the liberal
views which far-sighted men among them held on the subject of
a park which should embrace both banks of the Schuylkill would
finally ripen into a fruition beyond what the most sanguine could
then have dreamed, the great railways which now run in close
proximity to that stream would have reached the city by other
routes, or at least would have been carried on tracks more remote
from the river. At that day this could readily have been done
without conflicting with any interest; but now that the conditions
have been long established, and trade and travel settled in
conformity to them, any violent change must be regarded as out of
the question.”[42]

The Commissioners then make certain recommendations, which I will not
take up time to read. But I come to a brief passage:--

“The Commissioners, therefore, respectfully but strenuously
urge that steps shall be immediately taken to promote this most
desirable end. And they do this not alone in the interest of the
thousands whose vehicles are entangled at the railroad-crossing,
but much more in the interest of the hundreds of thousands
whose principal enjoyment of the Park has been and will be in
that portion of it which is most exposed to these dangerous
annoyances.”[43]

That is testimony. If this were a court of justice instead of
the Senate, and if you, Sir, were a court and the Senators now
before me were a jury, that would be a testimony conclusive in the
case,--testimony of experts, who know by experience what they testify,
who have seen with their own eyes and felt in their own consciousness,
whenever they entered that park, the nuisance against which I now
protest. Sir, they testify against the present bill. Can you answer the
testimony? Is it not clear? Is it not complete?

Sir, I need no testimony. I only ask Senators to look at the Park. Let
them pass through our Library and take their stand on that unequalled
portico from which they may look down upon an amphitheatre more like
that of ancient Rome than that of any other capital, with a river
beneath and hills in the distance,--a river much larger than the
ancient Tiber, and hills much more beautiful than those that stand
about Rome,--and a Capitol, too, but how much more beautiful than that
which once gave the law to mankind! Stand on that portico, Sir, and
survey the amphitheatre; your eye will then rest with satisfaction on
the outline of this very Park, stretching from the Capitol beyond the
Executive Mansion, and destined to be a breathing-place for the immense
population of future generations. Stand on that portico and try to
imagine what this Park may be.

And now it is proposed not only to diminish that breathing-place, but
to disturb it by the smoke of steam-engines, and to confuse it by
the perpetual din of locomotives. I hope no such thing will be done.
There is a place for all things; and this I know, the place for a
railway-station is not a public park.

HOURS OF LABOR.

LETTER TO THE CONVENTION OF THE MASSACHUSETTS LABOR UNION IN BOSTON,
MAY 25, 1872.

SENATE CHAMBER, May 25, 1872.

GENTLEMEN,--I cannot take part in your public meeting, but I declare
my sympathy with the working-men in their aspirations for greater
equality of condition and increased opportunities. I therefore insist
that the experiment of an eight-hour law in the national workshops
shall be fairly tried, so that, if successful, it may be extended.

Here let me confess that I find this law especially valuable, because
it promises more time for education and general improvement. If the
experiment is successful in this respect, I shall be less curious
on the question of pecuniary profit and loss; for to my mind the
education of the human family is above dollars and dividends.

Meanwhile accept my best wishes, and believe me

Faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

TO THE COMMITTEE.

ARBITRATION AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR WAR.

RESOLUTIONS IN THE SENATE, MAY 31, 1872, CONCERNING ARBITRATION AS A
SUBSTITUTE FOR WAR IN DETERMINING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NATIONS.

Whereas by International Law and existing custom War is recognized as a
form of Trial for the determination of differences between nations; and

Whereas for generations good men have protested against the irrational
character of this arbitrament, where force instead of justice prevails,
and have anxiously sought for a substitute in the nature of a judicial
tribunal, all of which was expressed by Franklin in his exclamation,
“When will mankind be convinced that all wars are follies, very
expensive and very mischievous, and agree to settle their differences
by Arbitration?”[44] and

Whereas war once prevailed in the determination of differences between
individuals, between cities, between counties, and between provinces,
being recognized in all these cases as the arbiter of justice, but
at last yielded to a judicial tribunal, and now, in the progress of
civilization, the time has come for the extension of this humane
principle to nations, so that their differences may be taken from the
arbitrament of war, and, in conformity with these examples, submitted
to a judicial tribunal; and

Whereas Arbitration has been formally recognized as a substitute
for war in the determination of differences between nations, being
especially recommended by the Congress of Paris, where were assembled
the representatives of England, France, Russia, Prussia, Austria,
Sardinia, and Turkey, and afterward adopted by the United States in
formal treaty with Great Britain for the determination of differences
arising from depredations of British cruisers, and also from opposing
claims with regard to the San Juan boundary; and

Whereas it becomes important to consider and settle the true character
of this beneficent tribunal, thus commended and adopted, so that its
authority and completeness as a substitute for war may not be impaired,
but strengthened and upheld, to the end that civilization may be
advanced and war be limited in its sphere: Therefore,

1. _Resolved_, That in the determination of international differences
Arbitration should become a substitute for war in reality as in
name, and therefore coëxtensive with war in jurisdiction, so that
any question or grievance which might be the occasion of war or of
misunderstanding between nations should be considered by this tribunal.

2. _Resolved_, That any withdrawal from a treaty recognizing
Arbitration, or any refusal to abide the judgment of the accepted
tribunal, or any interposition of technicalities to limit the
proceedings, is to this extent a disparagement of the tribunal as a
substitute for war, and therefore hostile to civilization.

3. _Resolved_, That the United States, having at heart the cause
of peace everywhere, and hoping to help its permanent establishment
between nations, hereby recommend the adoption of Arbitration as a
just and practical method for the determination of international
differences, to be maintained sincerely and in good faith, so that war
may cease to be regarded as a proper form of trial between nations.

REPUBLICANISM VS. GRANTISM.

THE PRESIDENCY A TRUST, NOT A PLAYTHING AND PERQUISITE.--PERSONAL
GOVERNMENT AND PRESIDENTIAL PRETENSIONS.--REFORM AND PURITY IN
GOVERNMENT.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, MAY 31, 1872.

_Socrates._ Then whom do you call the good?

_Alcibiades._ I mean by the good those who are able to rule in the
city.

_Socrates._ Not, surely, over horses?

_Alcibiades._ Certainly not.

_Socrates._ But over men?

_Alcibiades._ Yes.

PLATO, _Dialogues: First Alcibiades_. Tr. Jowett, Vol. IV. p. 545.

* * * * *

Amongst the foremost purposes ought to be the downfall of
this odious, insulting, degrading, aide-de-campish, incapable
dictatorship. At such a crisis, is this country to be left at the
mercy of barrack councils and mess-room politics?--_Letter of Lord
Durham to Henry Brougham, August, 1830_: _Life and Times of Henry
Lord Brougham_, Vol. III. p. 44.

* * * * *

It is a maxim in politics, which we readily admit as undisputed
and universal, that a power, however great, when granted by law
to an eminent magistrate, is not so dangerous to Liberty as an
authority, however inconsiderable, which he acquires from violence
and usurpation.

HUME, _Essays_, Part II.: Essay X., _Of Some Remarkable Customs_.

SPEECH.

The Sundry Civil Appropriation Bill coming up as unfinished
business, Mr. Sumner moved to postpone indefinitely its
consideration, and after remarking on the Report of the Committee
on the Sale of Arms to French Agents, he said:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--I have no hesitation in declaring myself a member of
the Republican Party, and one of the straitest of the sect. I doubt
if any Senator can point to earlier or more constant service in its
behalf. I began at the beginning, and from that early day have never
failed to sustain its candidates and to advance its principles. For
these I have labored always by speech and vote, in the Senate and
elsewhere,--at first with few only, but at last, as success began to
dawn, then with multitudes flocking forward. In this cause I never
asked who were my associates or how many they would number. In the
consciousness of right I was willing to be alone. To such a party, with
which so much of my life is intertwined, I have no common attachment.
Not without regret can I see it suffer; not without a pang can I see
it changed from its original character, for such a change is death.
Therefore do I ask, with no common feeling, that the peril which
menaces it may pass away. I stood by its cradle; let me not follow its
hearse.

ORIGIN AND OBJECT OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

Turning back to its birth, I recall a speech of my own at a State
Convention in Massachusetts, as early as September 7, 1854, where
I vindicated its principles and announced its name in these words:
“As _Republicans_ we go forth to encounter the _Oligarchs_ of
Slavery.”[45] The report records the applause with which this name was
received by the excited multitude. Years of conflict ensued, in which
the good cause constantly gained. At last, in the spring of 1860,
Abraham Lincoln was nominated by this party as its candidate for the
Presidency; and here pardon me, if I refer again to myself. On my way
home from the Senate I was detained in New York by the invitation of
party friends to speak at the Cooper Institute on the issues of the
pending election. The speech was made July 11, and, I believe, was the
earliest of the campaign. As published at the time, it was entitled
“Origin, Necessity, and Permanence of the Republican Party,” and to
exhibit these was its precise object. Both the necessity and permanence
of the party were asserted. A brief passage, which I take from the
report in the “New York Herald,” will show the duty and destiny I
ventured then to hold up. After dwelling on the evils of Slavery and
the corruptions it had engendered, including the purchase of votes at
the polls, I proceeded as follows:--

“Therefore, just so long as the present false theories of
Slavery prevail, whether concerning its character morally,
economically, and socially, or concerning its prerogatives under
the Constitution, just so long as the Slave Oligarchy, which is the
sleepless and unhesitating agent of Slavery in all its pretensions,
continues to exist as a political power, the Republican Party
must endure. [_Applause._] If bad men conspire for Slavery, good
men must combine for Freedom. [‘_Good! good!_’] Nor can the Holy
War be ended until the barbarism now dominant in the Republic is
overthrown, and the Pagan power is driven from our Jerusalem.
[_Applause._] And when this triumph is won, securing the immediate
object of our organization, the Republican Party will not die,
but, purified by its long contest with Slavery and filled with
higher life, it will be lifted to yet other efforts and with
nobler aims for the good of man. [_Applause, with three cheers for
Lincoln._]”[46]

Such, on the eve of the Presidential election, was my description of
the Republican Party and my aspiration for its future. It was not to
die, but, “purified by its long contest with Slavery and filled with
higher life,” we were to behold it “lifted to yet other efforts and
with nobler aims for the good of man.” Here was nothing personal,
nothing mean or petty. The Republican Party was necessary and
permanent, and always on an ascending plane. For such a party there
was no death, but higher life and nobler aims; and this was the party
to which I gave my vows. But, alas, how changed! Once country was the
object, and not a man; once principle was inscribed on the victorious
banners, and not a name only.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY SEIZED BY THE PRESIDENT.

It is not difficult to indicate when this disastrous change, exalting
the will of one man above all else, became not merely manifest, but
painfully conspicuous. Already it had begun to show itself in personal
pretensions, to which I shall refer soon, when, suddenly and without
any warning through the public press or any expression from public
opinion, the President elected by the Republican Party precipitated
upon the country an ill-considered and ill-omened scheme for the
annexion of a portion of the island of San Domingo, in pursuance
of a treaty negotiated by a person of his own household styling
himself “Aide-de-Camp to the President of the United States.” Had
this effort, however injudicious in object, been confined to ordinary
and constitutional proceedings, with proper regard for a coördinate
branch of the Government, it would have soon dropped out of sight
and been remembered only as a blunder. But it was not so. Strangely
and unaccountably, it was pressed for months by every means and
appliance of power, whether at home or abroad, now reaching into the
Senate Chamber, and now into the waters about the island. Reluctant
Senators were subdued to its support, while, treading under foot the
Constitution in one of its most distinctive republican principles,
the President seized the war powers of the nation, instituted foreign
intervention, and capped the climax of usurpation by menace of violence
to the Black Republic of Hayti, where the colored race have begun
the experiment of self-government,--thus adding manifest outrage of
International Law to manifest outrage of the Constitution, while the
long-suffering African was condemned to new indignity. All these
things, so utterly indefensible and aggravating, and therefore to be
promptly disowned, found defenders on this floor. The President who
was the original author of the wrongs continued to maintain them,
and appealed to Republican Senators for help,--thus fulfilling the
eccentric stipulation with the Government of Baez executed by his
Aide-de-Camp.

At last a Republican Senator, who felt it his duty to exhibit these
plain violations of the Constitution and of International Law, and
then in obedience to the irresistible promptings of his nature and in
harmony with his whole life pleaded for the equal rights of the Black
Republic, who declared that he did this as a Republican and to save the
party from this wretched complicity,--this Republican Senator, engaged
in a patriotic service, and anxious to save the colored people from
outrage, was denounced on this floor as a traitor to the party; and
this was done by a Senator speaking for the party, and known to be in
intimate relations with the President guilty of these wrongs. Evidently
the party was in process of change from that generous association
dedicated to Human Rights and to the guardianship of the African race.
Too plainly it was becoming the instrument of _one man and his personal
will_,--no matter how much he set at defiance the Constitution and
International Law, or how much he insulted the colored people. The
President was to be maintained at all hazards, notwithstanding his
aberrations, and all who called them in question were to be struck down.

In exhibiting this autocratic pretension, so revolutionary and
unrepublican in character, I mean to be moderate in language and
to keep within the strictest bounds. The facts are indisputable,
and nobody can deny the gross violation of the Constitution and of
International Law with insult to the Black Republic,--the whole case
being more reprehensible, as also plainly more unconstitutional and
more illegal, than anything alleged against Andrew Johnson on his
impeachment. Believe me, Sir, I should gladly leave this matter to the
judgment already recorded, if it were not put in issue again by the
extraordinary efforts, radiating on every line of office, to press its
author for a second term as President; and since silence gives consent,
all these efforts are his efforts. They become more noteworthy when it
is considered that the name of the candidate thus pressed has become
a sign of discord and not of concord, dividing instead of uniting the
Republican Party, so that these extraordinary efforts tend directly
to the disruption of the party,--all of which he witnesses, and again
by his silence ratifies. “Let the party split,” says the President,
“I will not renounce my chance of a second term.” The extent of this
personal pressure and the subordination of the party to the will of an
individual compel us to consider his pretensions. These, too, are in
issue.

PRESIDENTIAL PRETENSIONS.

“Upon what meat doth this our Cæsar feed,” that he should assume so
much? No honor for victory in war can justify disobedience to the
Constitution and to Law; nor can it afford the least apology for any
personal immunity, privilege, or license in the Presidential office. A
President must turn into a King before it can be said of him that he
can do no wrong. He is responsible always. As President he is foremost
servant of the Law, bound to obey its slightest mandate. As the elect
of the people he owes not only the example of willing obedience, but
also of fidelity and industry in the discharge of his exalted office,
with an absolute abnegation of all self-seeking. Nothing for self, but
all for country. And now, as we regard the career of this candidate,
we find to our amazement how little it accords with this simple
requirement. Bring it to the touchstone and it fails.

Not only are Constitution and Law disregarded, but the Presidential
office itself is treated as little more than a plaything and a
perquisite,--when not the former, then the latter. Here the details are
ample, showing how from the beginning this august trust has dropped to
be a personal indulgence, where palace-cars, fast horses, and seaside
loiterings figure more than duties; how personal aims and objects have
been more prominent than the public interest; how the Presidential
office has been used to advance his own family on a scale of nepotism
dwarfing everything of the kind in our history, and hardly equalled
in the corrupt governments where this abuse has most prevailed; how
in the same spirit office has been conferred upon those from whom he
had received gifts or benefits, thus making the country repay his
personal obligations; how personal devotion to himself, rather than
public or party service, has been made the standard of favor; how the
vast appointing power conferred by the Constitution for the general
welfare has been employed at his will to promote his schemes, to reward
his friends, to punish his opponents, and to advance his election to
a second term; how all these assumptions have matured in a _personal
government_, semi-military in character and breathing the military
spirit,--being a species of Cæsarism or _personalism_, abhorrent to
republican institutions, where subservience to the President is the
supreme law; how in maintaining this subservience he has operated by
a system of combinations, military, political, and even senatorial,
having their orbits about him, so that, like the planet Saturn, he is
surrounded by rings,--nor does the similitude end here, for his rings,
like those of the planet, are held in position by satellites; how
this utterly unrepublican Cæsarism has mastered the Republican Party
and dictated the Presidential will, stalking into the Senate Chamber
itself, while a vindictive spirit visits good Republicans who cannot
submit; how the President himself, unconscious that a President has
no right to quarrel with anybody, insists upon quarrelling until he
has become the great Presidential quarreller, with more quarrels than
all other Presidents together, all begun and continued by himself; how
his personal followers back him in quarrels, insult those he insults,
and then, not departing from his spirit, cry out, with Shakespeare,
“We will have _rings_ and things and fine array”; and, finally, how
the chosen head of the Republic is known chiefly for Presidential
pretensions, utterly indefensible in character, derogatory to the
country, and of evil influence, making personal objects a primary
pursuit, so that, instead of a beneficent presence, he is a bad
example, through whom republican institutions suffer and the people
learn to do wrong.

Would that these things could be forgotten! but since through
officious friends the President insists upon a second term, they must
be considered and publicly discussed. When understood, nobody will
vindicate them. It is easy to see that Cæsarism even in Europe is at a
discount, that “personal government” has been beaten on that ancient
field, and that “Cæsar with a Senate at his heels” is not the fit
model for our Republic. King George the Third of England, so peculiar
for narrowness and obstinacy, had retainers in Parliament who went
under the name of “The King’s Friends.” Nothing can be allowed here to
justify the inquiry, “Have we a King George among us?”--or that other
question, “Have we a party in the Senate of ‘The King’s Friends’?”

PERSONAL GOVERNMENT UNREPUBLICAN.

Personal Government is autocratic. It is the One-Man Power elevated
above all else, and is therefore in direct conflict with republican
government, whose consummate form is tripartite, being executive,
legislative, and judicial,--each independent and coëqual. From Mr.
Madison, in “The Federalist,” we learn that the accumulation of
these powers “in the same hands” may justly be pronounced “the very
definition of Tyranny.”[47] And so any attempt by either to exercise
the powers of another is a tyrannical invasion, always reprehensible
in proportion to its extent. John Adams tells us, in most instructive
words, that “it is by balancing each of these powers against the other
two that the efforts in human nature towards tyranny can alone be
checked and restrained, and any degree of freedom preserved in the
Constitution.”[48]

Then, again, the same authority says that the perfection of this
great idea is “by giving each division a power to defend itself by a
negative.”[49] In other words, each is armed against invasion by the
others. Accordingly, the Constitution of Virginia, in 1776, famous
as an historical precedent, declared expressly: “The legislative,
executive, and judiciary departments shall be separate and distinct, so
that neither exercise the powers properly belonging to the other; nor
shall any person exercise the powers of more than one of them at the
same time.”[50]

The Constitution of Massachusetts, dating from 1780, embodied the same
principle in memorable words: “In the government of this Commonwealth,
the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and
judicial powers, or either of them; the executive shall never exercise
the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them; the judicial
shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of
them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.”[51]

A government of laws and not of men is the object of republican
government; nay, more, it is the distinctive essence without which it
becomes a tyranny. Therefore personal government in all its forms,
and especially when it seeks to sway the action of any other branch
or overturn its constitutional negative, is hostile to the first
principles of republican institutions, and an unquestionable outrage.
That our President has offended in this way is unhappily too apparent.

THE PRESIDENT AS A CIVILIAN.

To comprehend the personal government that has been installed
over us we must know its author. His picture is the necessary
frontispiece,--not as soldier, let it be borne in mind, but as
civilian. The President is titular head of the Army and Navy of the
United States, but his office is not military or naval. As if to
exclude all question, he is classed by the Constitution among “civil
officers.” Therefore as civilian is he to be seen. Then, perhaps, may
we learn the secret of the policy so adverse to republicanism in which
he perseveres.

To appreciate his peculiar character as a civilian it is important to
know his triumphs as a soldier, for the one is the natural complement
of the other. The successful soldier is rarely changed to the
successful civilian. There seems an incompatibility between the two,
modified by the extent to which one has been allowed to exclude the
other. One always a soldier cannot late in life become a statesman; one
always a civilian cannot late in life become a soldier. Education and
experience are needed for each. Washington and Jackson were civilians
as well as soldiers.

In the large training and experience of Antiquity the soldier and
civilian were often united; but in modern times this has been seldom.
The camp is peculiar in the influence it exercises; it is in itself
an education; but it is not the education of the statesman. To
suppose that we can change without preparation from the soldier to
the statesman is to assume that training and experience are of less
consequence for the one than the other,--that a man may be born a
statesman, but can fit himself as a soldier only by four years at West
Point, careful scientific study, the command of troops, and experience
in the tented field. And is nothing required for the statesman? Is his
duty so slight? His study is the nation and its welfare, turning always
to history for example, to law for authority, and to the loftiest truth
for rules of conduct. No knowledge, care, or virtue, disciplined by
habit, can be too great. The pilot is not accepted in his trust until
he knows the signs of the storm, the secrets of navigation, the rocks
of the coast,--all of which are learned only by careful study with
charts and soundings, by coasting the land and watching the crested
wave. But can less be expected of that other pilot who is to steer the
ship which contains us all?

The failure of the modern soldier as statesman is exhibited by Mr.
Buckle in his remarkable work on the “History of Civilization.” Writing
as a philosopher devoted to liberal ideas, he does not disguise that
in Antiquity “the most eminent soldiers were likewise the most eminent
politicians”; but he plainly shows the reason when he adds, that
“in the midst of the hurry and turmoil of camps these eminent men
cultivated their minds to the highest point that the knowledge of that
age would allow.”[52] The secret was culture not confined to war. In
modern Europe few soldiers have been more conspicuous than Gustavus
Adolphus and Frederick sometimes called the Great; but we learn from
our author that both “failed ignominiously in their domestic policy,
and showed themselves as short-sighted in the arts of peace as they
were sagacious in the arts of war.”[53] The judgment of Marlborough
is more pointed. While portraying him as “the greatest conqueror of
his age, the hero of a hundred fights, the victor of Blenheim and
of Ramillies,” the same philosophical writer adds that he was “a
man not only of the most idle and frivolous pursuits, but was so
miserably ignorant that his deficiencies made him the ridicule of his
contemporaries,” while his politics were compounded of selfishness and
treachery.[54] Nor was Wellington an exception. Though shining in the
field without a rival, and remarkable for integrity of purpose, an
unflinching honesty, and high moral feeling, the conqueror of Waterloo
is described as “nevertheless utterly unequal to the complicated
exigencies of political life.”[55] This judgment of the philosopher
is confirmed by that of Metternich, the renowned statesman, who, after
encountering Wellington at the Congresses of Vienna and Verona, did not
hesitate to write of him as “the great Baby.”[56] Such are the examples
of history, each with its warning.

It would be hard to find anything in the native endowments or in
the training of our chieftain to make him an illustrious exception;
at least nothing of this kind is recorded. Was Nature more generous
with him than with Marlborough or Wellington, Gustavus Adolphus or
Frederick called the Great? or was his experience of life a better
preparation than theirs? And yet they failed, except in war. It is not
known that our chieftain had any experience as a civilian until he
became President, nor does any partisan attribute to him that double
culture which in Antiquity made the same man soldier and statesman.
It has often been said that he took no note of public affairs, never
voting but once in his life, and then for James Buchanan. After leaving
West Point he became a captain in the Army, but soon abandoned the
service, to reappear at a later day as a successful general. There is
no reason to believe that he employed this intermediate period in any
way calculated to improve him as a statesman. One of his unhesitating
supporters, my colleague, [Mr. WILSON,] in a speech intended to
commend him for reëlection, says: “Before the war we knew nothing of
Grant. He was earning a few hundred dollars a year in tanning hides
in Galena.”[57] By the war he passed to be President; and such was
his preparation to govern the Great Republic, making it an example
to mankind! Thus he learned to deal with all questions, domestic
and foreign, whether of peace or war, to declare Constitutional Law
and International Law, and to administer the vast appointing power,
creating Cabinet officers, judges, foreign ministers, and an uncounted
army of office-holders!

To these things must be added, that when this soldier first began as
civilian he was already forty-six years old. At this mature age, close
upon half a century, when habits are irrevocably fixed, when the mind
has hardened against what is new, when the character has taken its
permanent form, and the whole man is rooted in his own unchangeable
individuality, our soldier entered abruptly upon the untried life of a
civilian in its most exalted sphere. Do not be surprised, that, like
other soldiers, he failed; the wonder would be had he succeeded. There
is a French saying, that at forty a man has given his measure. At least
his vocation is settled,--how completely is seen, if we suppose the
statesman, after traversing the dividing point, abruptly changed to
the soldier. And yet at an age nearly seven years later our soldier
precipitately changed to the statesman.

This sudden metamorphosis cannot be forgotten, when we seek to
comprehend the strange pretensions which ensued. It is easy to see how
some very moderate experience in civil life, involving of course the
lesson of subordination to republican principles, would have prevented
indefensible acts.

TESTIMONY OF THE LATE EDWIN M. STANTON.

Something also must be attributed to individual character. And here I
express no opinion of my own; I shall allow another to speak in solemn
words echoed from the tomb.

On reaching Washington at the opening of Congress in December, 1869,
I was pained to hear that Mr. Stanton, lately Secretary of War, was
in failing health. Full of gratitude for his unsurpassed services,
and with a sentiment of friendship quickened by common political
sympathies, I lost no time in seeing him, and repeated my visits until
his death, toward the close of the same month. My last visit was marked
by a communication never to be forgotten. As I entered his bedroom,
where I found him reclining on a sofa, propped by pillows, he reached
out his hand, already clammy cold, and in reply to my inquiry, “How
are you?” answered, “Waiting for my furlough.” Then at once, with
singular solemnity, he said, “I have something to say to you.” When
I was seated, he proceeded without one word of introduction: “I know
General Grant better than any other person in the country can know him.
It was my duty to study him, and I did so night and day, when I saw him
and when I did not see him; and now I tell you what I know: _he cannot
govern this country_.” The intensity of his manner and the positiveness
of his judgment surprised me; for, though I was aware that the late
Secretary of War did not place the President very high in general
capacity, I was not prepared for a judgment so strongly couched. At
last, after some delay, occupied in meditating his remarkable words,
I observed, “What you say is very broad.” “It is as true as it is
broad,” he replied promptly. I added, “You are tardy; you tell this
late: why did you not say it before his nomination?” He answered, that
he was not consulted about the nomination, and had no opportunity of
expressing his opinion upon it, besides being much occupied at the time
by his duties as Secretary of War and his contest with the President.
I followed by saying, “But you took part in the Presidential election,
and made a succession of speeches for him in Ohio and Pennsylvania.”
“I spoke,” said he, “but I never introduced the name of General Grant.
I spoke for the Republican Party and the Republican cause.” This was
the last time I saw Mr. Stanton. A few days later I followed him to the
grave where he now rests. As the vagaries of the President became more
manifest, and the Presidential office seemed more and more a plaything
and perquisite, this dying judgment of the great citizen who knew him
so well haunted me constantly, day and night; and I now communicate
it to my country, feeling that it is a legacy which I have no right
to withhold. Beyond the intrinsic interest from its author, it is not
without value as testimony in considering how the President could have
been led into that Quixotism of personal pretension which it is my duty
to expose.[58]

DUTY TO MAKE EXPOSURE.

Pardon me, if I repeat that it is my duty to make this exposure,
spreading before you the proofs of that personal government, which will
only pass without censure when it passes without observation. Insisting
upon reëlection, the President challenges inquiry and puts himself upon
the country. But even if his pressure for reëlection did not menace
the tranquillity of the country, it is important that the personal
pretensions he has set up should be exposed, that no President
hereafter may venture upon such ways, and no Senator presume to defend
them. The case is clear as noon.

TWO TYPICAL INSTANCES.

In opening this catalogue I select two typical instances,--Nepotism,
and Gift-Taking with repayment by office, each absolutely indefensible
in the head of a Republic, most pernicious in example, and showing
beyond question that surpassing egotism which changed the Presidential
office into a personal instrumentality, not unlike the trunk of an
elephant, apt for all things, small as well as great, from provision
for a relation to forcing a treaty on a reluctant Senate, or forcing a
reëlection on a reluctant people.

NEPOTISM OF THE PRESIDENT.

Between these two typical instances I hesitate which to place foremost:
but since the nepotism of the President is a ruling passion, revealing
the primary instincts of his nature,--since it is maintained by him
in utter unconsciousness of its offensive character,--since, instead
of blushing for it as an unhappy mistake, he continues to uphold
it,--since it has been openly defended by Senators on this floor,--and
since no true patriot anxious for republican institutions can doubt
that it ought to be driven with hissing and scorn from all possibility
of repetition,--I begin with this undoubted abuse.

There has been no call of Congress for a return of the relations
holding office, stipend, or money-making opportunity under the
President. The country is left to the press for information on this
important subject. If there is any exaggeration, the President is
in fault,--since, knowing the discreditable allegations, he has not
hastened to furnish the precise facts, or at least his partisans have
failed in not calling for the official information. In the mood which
they have shown in this Chamber, it is evident that any resolution
calling for it, moved by a Senator not known to be for his reëlection,
would meet with opposition, and an effort to vindicate republican
institutions would be denounced as an assault on the President. But
the newspapers have placed enough beyond question for judgment on this
extraordinary case, although thus far there has been no attempt to
appreciate it, especially in the light of history.

One list makes the number of beneficiaries as many as forty-two,
being probably every known person allied to the President by blood or
marriage. Persons seeming to speak for the President, or at least after
careful inquiries, have denied the accuracy of this list, reducing it
to thirteen. It will not be questioned that there is at least a baker’s
dozen in this category,--thirteen relations of the President billeted
on the country, not one of whom but for this relationship would have
been brought forward, the whole constituting a case of nepotism not
unworthy of those worst governments where office is a family possession.

Beyond the list of thirteen are other revelations, showing that this
strange abuse did not stop with the President’s relations, but that
these obtained appointments for others in their circle,--so that every
relation became a centre of influence, while the Presidential family
extended indefinitely.

Hitherto only one President has appointed relations, and that was
John Adams; but he found public opinion, inspired by the example of
Washington, so strong against it, that, after a slight experiment,
he replied to an applicant, “You know it is impossible for me to
appoint my own relations to anything, without drawing forth a torrent
of obloquy.”[59] The judgment of the country found voice in Thomas
Jefferson, who, in a letter written shortly after he became President,
used these strong words: “Mr. Adams _degraded himself infinitely_ by
his conduct on this subject.”[60] But John Adams, besides transferring
his son John Quincy Adams from one diplomatic post to another,
appointed only two relations. Pray, Sir, what words would Jefferson
use, if he were here to speak on the open and multifarious nepotism of
our President?

ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF NEPOTISM.

The Presidential pretension is so important in every aspect, and the
character of republican institutions is so absolutely compromised by
its toleration, that it cannot be treated in any perfunctory way. It
shall not be my fault, if hereafter there is any doubt with regard to
it.

The word “Nepotism” is of Italian origin. First appearing at Rome when
the Papal power was at its height, it served to designate the authority
and influence exercised by the nephews, or more generally the family,
of a Pope: all the family of a Pope were nephews, and the Pope was
universal uncle. From Italian the word passed into other European
languages, but in the lapse of time or process of naturalization it
has come to denote the misconduct of the appointing power, and has
amplified so as to embrace others besides Popes who appoint relations
to office. Johnson in his Dictionary defines it simply as “Fondness for
nephews”; but our latest and best lexicographer, Worcester, supplies
a definition more complete and satisfactory: “Favoritism shown to
relations; patronage bestowed _in consideration of family relationship
and not of merit_.” Such undoubtedly is the meaning of the word as now
received and employed.

The character of this pretension appears in its origin and history.
As far back as 1667 this undoubted abuse occupied attention to such a
degree that it became the subject of an able historical work, entitled
“Il Nipotismo di Roma,” which is full of instruction and warning even
for our Republic. In the early days of the Church Popes are described
as discarding all relationship, whether of blood or alliance, and
inclining to merit alone in their appointments, although there were
some with so large a number of nephews, grand-nephews, brothers-in-law,
and relations, as to baffle belief; and yet it is recorded that no
sooner did the good Pope enter the Vatican, which is the Executive
Mansion of Rome, than relations fled, brothers-in-law hid themselves,
grand-nephews removed away, and nephews got at a long distance.[61]
Such was the early virtue. Nepotism did not exist, and the word itself
was unknown.

At last, in 1471, twenty-one years before the discovery of America
by Columbus, Sixtus the Fourth became Pope, and with him began that
nepotism which soon became famous as a Roman institution.[62] Born
in 1414, the son of a fisherman, the eminent founder was already
fifty-seven years old, and he reigned thirteen years, bringing to his
functions large experience as a successful preacher and as general of
the Franciscan friars. Though cradled in poverty, and by the vows of
his Order bound to mendicancy, he began at once to heap office and
riches upon the various members of his family, so that his conduct,
from its barefaced inconsistency with the obligation of his life,
excited, according to the historian, “the amazement and wonder of
all.”[63] The useful reforms he attempted are forgotten, and this
remarkable pontiff is chiefly remembered now as the earliest nepotist.
Different degrees of severity are employed by different authors in
characterizing this unhappy fame. Bouillet, in his Dictionary of
History,[64] having Catholic approbation, describes him as “feeble
toward his nephews”; and our own Cyclopædia,[65] in a brief exposition
of his character, says “he made himself odious by excessive nepotism.”
But in all varieties of expression the offence stands out for judgment.

The immediate successor of Sixtus was Innocent the Eighth, whom the
historian describes as “very cold to his relations,”[66] since three
only obtained preferment at his hands. But the example of the founder
so far prevailed that for a century nepotism, as was said, “lorded it
in Rome,”[67] except in a few instances worthy of commemoration and
example.

Of these exceptions, the first in time was Julius the Second, founder
of St. Peter’s at Rome, whose remarkable countenance is so beautifully
preserved by the genius of Rafael. Though the nephew of the nepotist,
and not declining to appoint all relations, he did it with such
moderation that Rome was said to have been “almost without nepotism”
in his time.[68] Adrian the Sixth, early teacher of Charles the Fifth,
and successor of Leo the Tenth, set a better example by refusing
absolutely; but so accustomed had Rome become to this abuse, that not
only the ambassadors, but the people, condemned him as “too rude” with
his relations. A son of his cousin, studying in Siena, started for
Rome, trusting to obtain important recognition; but the Pope, without
seeing him, sent him back on a hired horse. Relations thronged from
other places, and even from across the Alps, longing for that greatness
which other Popes had lavished on family; but Adrian dismissed them
with a slight change of clothing and an allowance of money for the
journey: one who from poverty came on foot was permitted to return on
foot. This Pope carried abnegation of his family so far as to make
relationship an excuse for not rewarding one who had served the Church
well.[69] Similar in character was Marcellus the Second, who became
Pope in 1555. He was unwilling that any of his family should come to
Rome; even his brother was forbidden: but this good example was closed
by death, after a reign of twenty days only; and yet this brief period
of exemplary virtue has made this pontiff famous. Kindred in spirit was
Urban the Seventh, who reigned thirteen days only in 1590, but long
enough to repel his relations,--and also Leo the Eleventh, who reigned
twenty-five days in 1605. To this list may be added Innocent the Ninth,
who died after two months of service. It is related that his death
displeased his relations much, and dissolved the air-castles they had
built. They had hurried from Bologna, but, except a grand-nephew, all
were obliged to return poor as they came.[70] In this list I must not
forget Pius the Fifth, who reigned from 1566 to 1572. He set himself
so completely against aggrandizing his own family, that he was with
difficulty persuaded to make a sister’s son cardinal,--and would
not have done it, had not all the cardinals united, on grounds of
conscience, against the denial of this dignity to one most worthy of
it.[71] Such virtue was part of that elevated character which caused
his subsequent canonization.

These good Popes were short-lived,--their reigns for the most
part counting by days only; but they opened happy glimpses of an
administration where the powers of government were not treated as a
personal perquisite. The opposite list had the advantage of time.

Conspicuous among nepotists was Alexander the Sixth, whose family name
of Borgia is damned to fame. With him nepotism assumed its most brutal
and barbarous development, reflecting the character of its pontifical
author, who was without the smallest ray of good. Other Popes were
less cruel and bloody, but not less determined in providing for their
families. Paul the Third, who was of the great house of Farnese, would
have had the estates of the Church a garden for the “lilies” which
flourish on the escutcheon of his family.[72] It is related that when
Urban the Eighth, who was a Barberini, began his historic reign, all
his relations at a distance flew to Rome like the “bees” on the family
arms, to suck the honey of the Church, but not leaving behind the
sting with which they pricked while they sucked.[73] Whether lilies
or bees, it was the same. The latter pontiff gave to nepotism fulness
of power when he resolved “to have no business with any one not
dependent upon his house.”[74] In the same spirit he excused himself
from making a man cardinal because he had “always been the enemy of
his nephews.”[75] Although nothing so positive is recorded of Paul the
Fifth, who was a Borghese, his nepotism appears in the Roman saying,
that, “while serving the Church as a good shepherd, he gave too much
wool to his nephews.”[76] These instructive incidents, illustrating
the pontifical pretension, reflect light on the history of palaces and
galleries at Rome, now admired by the visitor from distant lands. If
not created, they were at least enlarged by nepotism.

It does not always appear how many relations a Pope endowed. Often
it was all, as in the case of Gregory the Thirteenth, who, besides
advancing a nephew actually at Rome, called thither all his nephews and
grand-nephews, whether from brothers or sisters, and gave them offices,
dignities, governments, lordships, prelacies, and abbacies.[77] Cæsar
Borgia and his sister Lucretia were not the only relations of Alexander
the Sixth. I do not find the number adopted by Sixtus, the founder of
the system. Pius the Fourth, who was of the grasping Medicean family,
favored no less than twenty-five.[78] Alexander the Seventh, of the
Chigi family, had about him five nephews and one brother, which a
contemporary characterized as “nepotism all complete.”[79] This pontiff
began his reign by forbidding his relations to appear at Rome, which
redounded at once to his credit throughout the Christian world, while
the astonished people discoursed of his holiness and the purity of his
life, expecting even to see miracles. In making the change, he yielded
evidently to immoral pressure and the example of predecessors.

The performances of papal nephews figure in history. After the Borgias
were the Caraffas, who obtained power through Paul the Fourth; but at
last becoming too insolent and rapacious, their uncle was compelled to
strip them of their dignities and drive them from Rome.[80] Sometimes
nephews were employed chiefly in ministering to pontifical pleasures,
as in the case of Julius the Third, who, according to the historian,
“thought of nothing but banqueting with this one and that one, keeping
his relations in Rome rather to accompany him at banquets than to
aid him in the government of the holy Church, about which he thought
little.”[81] This occasion for relations does not exist at Rome now, as
the pontiff leads a discreet life, always at home, and never banquets
abroad.

These historic instances make us see nepotism in its original
seat. Would you know how it was regarded there? Sometimes it was
called a hydra with many heads, sprouting anew at the election of a
pontiff,[82] then again it was called Ottoman rather than Christian
in character.[83] The contemporary historian who has described it so
minutely says that those who merely read of it without seeing it will
find it difficult to believe or even imagine.[84] The qualities of a
Pope’s relation were said to be “ignorance and cunning.”[85] It is easy
to believe that this prostitution of the head of the Church was one
of the abuses which excited the cry for Reform, and awakened even in
Rome the echoes of Martin Luther. A Swedish nobleman visiting Rome is
recorded as declaring himself unwilling to be the subject of a pontiff
who was himself the subject of his own relations.[86] But even this
pretension was not without open defenders, while the general effrontery
with which it was maintained assumed that it was above question. If
some gave with eyes closed, most gave with eyes open. It was said that
Popes were not to neglect their own blood, that they should not show
themselves worse than the beasts, not one of which fails to caress its
relations; and the case of bears and lions, the most ferocious of all,
was cited as authority for this recognition of one’s own blood.[87]
All this was soberly said, and it is doubtless true. Not even a Pope
can justly neglect his own blood; but help and charity must be at his
own expense, and not at the expense of his country. In appointments to
office, merit and not blood is the only just recommendation.

That nepotism has ceased to lord itself in Rome, that no pontiff
billets his relations upon the Church, that the appointing power
of the Pope is treated as a public trust and not as a personal
perquisite,--all this is the present testimony with regard to that
government which knows from experience the baneful character of this
abuse.

AMERICAN AUTHORITIES ON NEPOTISM.

The nepotism of Rome was little known in our country, and I do not
doubt that Washington, when declining to make the Presidential office
a personal perquisite, was governed by that instinct of duty and
patriotism which rendered him so preëminent. Through all the perils of
a seven years’ war he had battled with that kingly rule which elevates
a whole family without regard to merit, fastening all upon the nation,
and he had learned that this royal system could find no place in a
republic. Therefore he rejected the claims of relations, and in nothing
was his example more beautiful. His latest biographer, Washington
Irving, records him as saying:--

“So far as I know my own mind, I would not be in the remotest
degree influenced in making nominations by motives arising from the
ties of family or blood.”[88]

Then again he declared his purpose to “discharge the duties of the
office with that impartiality and zeal for the public good which ought
never to suffer connections of blood or friendship to intermingle so as
to have the least sway on decisions of a public nature.”[89]

This excellent rule of conduct is illustrated by the advice to his
successor with regard to the promotion of his son, John Quincy Adams.
After giving it as his “decided opinion” that the latter “is the most
valuable public character we have abroad,” and promises to be “the
ablest of all our diplomatic corps,” Washington declares:--

“If he was now to be brought into that line, or into any other
public walk, I could not, upon the principle which has regulated my
own conduct, disapprove of the caution which is hinted at in the
letter.”[90]

Considering the importance of the rule, it were better for the country
if it had prevailed over parental regard and the extraordinary merits
of the son.

In vindicating his conduct at a later day, John Adams protested against
what he called “the hypersuperlative public virtue” of Washington,
and insisted: “A President ought not to appoint a man because he is
his relation; nor ought he to refuse or neglect to appoint him for
that reason.”[91] With absolute certainty that the President is above
all prejudice of family and sensitive to merit only, this rule is not
unreasonable; but who can be trusted to apply it?

Jefferson developed and explained the true principles in a manner
worthy of republican institutions. In a letter to a relation
immediately after becoming President, he wrote:

“The public will never be made to believe that an appointment of
a relative is made on the ground of merit alone, uninfluenced by
family views; _nor can they ever see with approbation offices,
the disposal of which they intrust to their Presidents for public
purposes, divided out as family property_. Mr. Adams degraded
himself infinitely by his conduct on this subject, as General
Washington had done himself the greatest honor. With two such
examples to proceed by, I should be doubly inexcusable to err.”[92]

After his retirement from the Presidency, in a letter to a kinsman, he
asserts the rule again:--

“Towards acquiring the confidence of the people, the very first
measure is to satisfy them of his disinterestedness, and that he is
directing their affairs with a single eye to their good, and not to
build up fortunes for himself and family; and especially that the
officers appointed to transact their business are appointed because
they are the fittest men, not because they are his relations. So
prone are they to suspicion, that, where a President appoints a
relation of his own, however worthy, they will believe that favor,
and not merit, was the motive. I therefore laid it down as a law of
conduct for myself, never to give an appointment to a relation.”[93]

That statement is unanswerable. The elect of the people must live so as
best to maintain their interests and to elevate the national sentiment.
This can be only by an example of unselfish devotion to the public weal
which shall be above suspicion. A President suspected of weakness for
his relations is already shorn of strength.

In saying that his predecessor “degraded himself infinitely by
his conduct on this subject,” Jefferson shows the rigor of his
requirement. Besides the transfer of his son, John Quincy Adams, from
one diplomatic mission of lower grade to another of a higher, John
Adams is responsible for the appointment of his son-in-law, Colonel
Smith, as surveyor of the port of New York, and his wife’s nephew,
William Cranch, as chief-justice of the Circuit Court of the District
of Columbia,--both persons of merit, and the former “serving through
the war with high applause of his superiors.”[94] The public sentiment
appears in the condemnation of these appointments. In refusing another
of his relations, we have already seen[95] that John Adams wrote:
“You know it is impossible for me to appoint my own relations to
anything without drawing forth a torrent of obloquy.” But this torrent
was nothing but the judgment of the American people unwilling that
republican institutions at that early day should suffer.

Thus far John Adams stands alone. If any other President has made
appointments from his own family, it has been on so petty a scale as
not to be recognized in history. John Quincy Adams, when President, did
not follow his father. An early letter to his mother foreshadows a rule
not unlike that of Jefferson:--

“I hope, my ever dear and honored mother, that you are fully
convinced from my letters, which you have before this received,
that upon the contingency of my father’s being placed in the first
magistracy I shall never give him any trouble by solicitation
for office of any kind. Your late letters have repeated so many
times that I shall in that case have nothing to _expect_, that
I am afraid you have imagined it possible that I _might_ form
expectations from such an event. I had hoped that _my mother_ knew
me better; that she did me the justice to believe that I have not
been so totally regardless or forgetful of the principles which my
education had instilled, nor so totally destitute of a _personal_
sense of delicacy, as to be susceptible of a wish tending in that
direction.”[96]

To Jefferson’s sense of public duty John Quincy Adams added the
sense of personal delicacy, both strong against such appointment of
relations. To the irresistible judgment against this abuse, a recent
moralist, of lofty nature, Theodore Parker, imparts new expression,
when he says, “It is a dangerous and unjust practice.”[97] This is
simple and monitory.

PRESIDENTIAL APOLOGIES FOR NEPOTISM.

Without the avalanche of testimony against this Presidential
pretension, it is necessary only to glance at the defences sometimes
set up; for such is the insensibility bred by Presidential example,
that even this intolerable outrage is not without voices speaking
for the President. Sometimes it is said, that, his salary being far
from royal, the people will not scan closely an attempt to help
relations,--which, being interpreted, means that the President may
supplement the pettiness of his salary by the appointing power. Let
John Adams, who did not hesitate to bestow office upon a few relations
of unquestioned merit, judge this pretension. I quote his words:--

“Every public man should be honestly paid for his services.… But he
should be restrained from every _perquisite_ not known to the laws,
and he should make no claims upon the gratitude of the public, nor
ever confer an office within his patronage upon a son, a brother, a
friend, upon pretence that he is not paid for his services by the
profits of his office.”[98]

It is impossible to deny the soundness of this requirement and its
completeness as an answer to one of the apologies.

Sometimes the defender is more audacious, insisting openly upon the
Presidential prerogative without question, until we seem to hear in
aggravated form the obnoxious cry, “To the victor belong the spoils.”
I did not suppose that this old cry could be revived in any form;
but since it is heard again, I choose to expose it; and here I use
the language of Madison, whose mild wisdom has illumined so much of
constitutional duty. In his judgment the pretension was odious, “that
offices and emoluments were the spoils of victory, _the personal
property_ of the successful candidate for the Presidency”; and he adds
in words not to be forgotten at this moment:--

“The principle, if avowed without the practice, or
practised without the avowal, could not fail to degrade any
Administration,--both together, completely so.”[99]

This is strong language. The rule in its early form could not fail to
degrade any Administration. But now this degrading rule is extended,
and we are told that to the President’s family belong the spoils.

Another apology, vouchsafed even on this floor, is, that, if the
President cannot appoint his relations, they alone of all citizens
are excluded from office,--which, it is said, should not be. But is
it not for the public good that they should be excluded? Such was the
wise judgment of Jefferson, and such is the testimony from another
quarter. That eminent prelate, Bishop Butler, who has given to English
literature one of its most masterly productions, known as “Butler’s
Analogy,” after his elevation to the see of Durham with its remarkable
patronage, was so self-denying with regard to his family that a nephew
said to him, “Methinks, my Lord, it is a misfortune to be related to
you.”[100] Golden words of honor for the English Bishop! But none such
have been earned by the American President.

Assuming that in case of positive merit designating a citizen for a
particular post the President might appoint a relation, it would be
only where the merit was so shining that his absence would be noticed.
At least it must be such as to make the citizen a candidate without
regard to family. But no such merit is attributed to the beneficiaries
of our President, some of whom have done little but bring scandal
upon the public service. At least one is tainted with fraud; and
another, with the commission of the Republic abroad, has been guilty of
indiscretions inconsistent with his trust. Appointed originally in open
defiance of republican principles, they have been retained in office
after their unfitness became painfully manifest. By the testimony
before a Congressional Committee, one of these, a brother-in-law, was
implicated in bribery and corruption. It is said that at last, after
considerable delay, the President has consented to his removal.

Here I leave for the present this enormous unrepublican pretension,
waiting to hear if it can again find an apologist. Is there a single
Senator who will not dismiss it to judgment?

GIFT-TAKING,--AND REPAYMENT WITH OFFICE.

From one typical abuse I pass to another. From a dropsical Nepotism
swollen to elephantiasis, which nobody can defend, I pass to
Gift-Taking, which with our President has assumed an unprecedented
form. Sometimes public men even in our country have taken gifts,
but it is not known that any President before has repaid the patron
with office. For a public man to take gifts is reprehensible; for
a President to select Cabinet councillors and other officers among
those from whom he has taken gifts is an anomaly in republican annals.
Observe, Sir, that I speak of it gently, unwilling to exhibit the
indignation which such a Presidential pretension is calculated to
arouse. The country will judge it, and blot it out as an example.

There have been throughout history corrupt characters in official
station; but, whether in ancient or modern times, the testimony is
constant against the taking of gifts, and nowhere with more force than
in our Scriptures, where it is said: “Thou shalt not wrest judgment,
thou shalt not respect persons, _neither take a gift_; for a gift doth
blind the eyes of the wise.”[101] Here is the inhibition, and also the
reason, which slight observation shows to be true. Does not a gift
blind the eyes of the wise? The influence of gifts is represented by
Plutarch in the life of a Spartan king:--

“For he thought those ways of entrapping men by gifts and presents,
which other kings use, dishonest and inartificial; and it seemed to
him to be the most noble method and most suitable to a king to win
the affections of those that came near him by personal intercourse
and agreeable conversation, since between a friend and a mercenary
the only distinction is, that we gain the one by one’s character
and conversation, the other by one’s money.”[102]

What is done under the influence of a gift is mercenary; but whether
from ruler to subject or from subject to ruler, the gift is equally
pernicious. An ancient patriot “feared the Greeks bearing gifts,”[103]
and these words have become a proverb; but there are Greeks bearing
gifts elsewhere than at Troy. A public man can traffic with such only
at his peril. At their appearance the prayer should be said, “Lead us
not into temptation.”

The best examples testify. Thus, in the autobiography of Lord Brougham,
posthumously published, it appears that at a great meeting in Glasgow
five hundred pounds were subscribed as a gift to him for his public
service, to be put into such form as he might think best. He hesitated.
“This required,” he records, “much consideration, as such gifts were
liable to be abused.” Not content with his own judgment, he assembled
some friends to discuss it,--“Lord Holland, Lord Erskine, Romilly, and
Baring,”--and he wrote to Earl Grey, afterward Prime-Minister, who
replied:--

“Both Grenville and I accepted from the Catholics of Glasgow a
piece of plate--of no great value indeed--_after we were turned
out_ in 1807.… If you still feel scruples, I can only add that
it is impossible to err on the side of delicacy with respect to
matters of this nature.”

It ended in his declining to accept anything more than the small top of
a gold inkstand.[104]

In our country Washington keeps his lofty heights, setting himself
against gift-taking as against nepotism. In 1785, while in private
life, two years after he ceased to be commander-in-chief of our armies
and four years before he became President, he could not be induced to
accept a certain amount of canal stock offered him by the State of
Virginia, as appears in an official communication:--

“It gives me great pleasure to inform you that the Assembly
yesterday, without a dissenting voice, complimented you with fifty
shares in the Potomac Company and one hundred in the James River
Company.”[105]

Fully to appreciate the reply of Washington, it must be borne in mind,
that, according to Washington Irving, his biographer, “some degree of
economy was necessary, for his financial concerns had suffered during
the war, and the products of his estate had fallen off.”[106] But he
was not tempted. Thus he wrote:--

“How would this matter be viewed by the eye of the world, and what
would be the opinion of it, when it comes to be related that George
Washington has received twenty thousand dollars and five thousand
pounds sterling of the public money as an interest therein?…
Under whatever pretence, and however customarily these gratuitous
gifts are made in other countries, should I not thenceforward be
considered as a dependant?”[107]

And subsequently to Jefferson:--

“I never for a moment entertained an idea of accepting it.”[108]

How admirably he touches the point when he asks, “Should I not
thenceforward be considered as a dependant?” According to our Scripture
the gift blinds the eyes; according to Washington it makes the receiver
a dependant.

In harmony with this sentiment was his subsequent refusal, when
President, as is recorded by an ingenuous writer:--

“He was exceedingly careful about committing himself; _would
receive no favors of any kind_, and scrupulously paid for
everything.… A large house was set apart for him on Ninth Street,
[Philadelphia,] on the grounds now covered by the Pennsylvania
University, _which he refused to accept_.”[109]

By such instances, brought to light recently, and shining in contrast
with our times, we learn to admire anew the virtue of Washington.

It would be easy to show how in all ages the refusal of gifts has been
recognized as the sign of virtue, if not the requirement of duty. The
story of St. Louis of France is beautiful and suggestive. Leaving on
a crusade, he charged the Queen, who remained behind, “not to accept
presents for herself or her children.”[110] Such was one of the
injunctions by which this monarch, when far away on a pious expedition,
impressed himself upon his country.

My own strong convictions on this Presidential pretension were aroused
in a conversation which it was my privilege to enjoy with John Quincy
Adams, as he sat in his sick-chamber at his son’s house in Boston,
a short time before he fell at his post of duty in the House of
Representatives. In a voice trembling with age and with emotion,
he said that no public man could take gifts without peril; and he
confessed that his own judgment had been quickened by the example of
Count Romanzoff, the eminent Chancellor of the Russian Empire, who,
after receiving costly gifts from foreign sovereigns with whom he had
negotiated treaties, felt a difficulty of conscience in keeping them,
and at last handed over their value to a hospital, as he related to Mr.
Adams, then Minister at St. Petersburg.[111] The latter was impressed
by this Russian example, and through his long career, as Minister
abroad, Secretary of State, President, and Representative, always
refused gifts, unless a book or some small article in its nature a
token and not a reward or bribe.

The Constitution testifies against the taking of gifts by officers
of the United States, when it provides that “no person holding any
office of profit or trust under them shall, without the consent of the
Congress, accept of any present or emolument from any king, prince, or
foreign State.” The acceptance of a present or emolument from our own
citizens was left without constitutional inhibition, to be constrained
by the public conscience and the just aversion to any semblance of
bargain and sale, or bribery, in the public service.

The case of our President is exceptional. Notoriously he has taken
gifts while in the public service, some at least after he had been
elected President, until “the Galena tanner of a few hundred dollars
a year”--to borrow the words of my colleague [Mr. WILSON], one of
his supporters--is now rich in houses, lands, and stock, above his
salary, being probably the richest President since George Washington.
Notoriously he has appointed to his Cabinet several among these “Greeks
bearing gifts,” without seeming to see the indecorum, if not the
indecency, of the transaction. At least two, if not three, of these
Greeks, having no known position in the Republican Party, or influence
in the country, have been selected as his counsellors in national
affairs and heads of great departments of government. Again do I
repeat the words of our Scriptures, “A gift doth blind the eyes of the
wise”; again the words of Washington, “Should I not thenceforward be
considered as a dependant?”

Nor does the case of the first Secretary of State differ in character
from that of the other three Cabinet officers referred to. The
President, feeling under personal obligation to Mr. Washburne for
important support, gave him a complimentary nomination, with the
understanding that after confirmation he should forthwith resign. I
cannot forget the indignant comment of the late Mr. Fessenden, as we
passed out of the Senate Chamber immediately after the confirmation.
“Who,” said he, “ever heard before of a man nominated Secretary of
State merely as a compliment?” But this is only another case of the
public service subordinated to personal considerations.

Not only in the Cabinet, but in other offices, there is reason to
believe that the President has been under the influence of patrons. Why
was he so blind to Thomas Murphy? The custom-house of New York, with
all its capacity as a political engine, was handed over to this agent,
whose want of recognition in the Republican Party was outbalanced by
Presidential favor, and whose gifts have become notorious. And when the
demand for his removal was irresistible, the President accepted his
resignation with an effusion of sentiment natural toward a patron, but
without justification in the character of the retiring officer.

Shakespeare, who saw intuitively the springs of human conduct, touches
more than once on the operation of the gift. “I’ll do thee service for
so good a gift,” said Gloster to Warwick.[112] Then, again, how truly
spoke the lord, who said of Timon,--

“No gift to him
But breeds the giver a return exceeding
All use of quittance.”[113]

And such were the returns made by the President.

Thus much for gifts, reciprocated by office. The instance is original
and without precedent in our history.

THE PRESIDENCY A PERQUISITE.

I have now completed the survey of the two typical instances--Nepotism,
and Gift-Taking with repayment by office--in which we are compelled
to see the President. In these things he shows himself. Here is no
portrait drawn by critic or enemy; it is the original who stands
forth, saying: “Behold the generosity I practise to my relations at
the expense of the public service! also the gifts I take, and then
my way of rewarding the patrons, always at the expense of the public
service!” In this open exhibition we see how the Presidency, instead
of a trust, has become a perquisite. Bad as are these two capital
instances, and important as is their condemnation, so that they may not
become a precedent, I dwell on them now as illustrating character. A
President who can do such things, and not recognize at once the error
he has committed, shows that supereminence of egotism under which
Constitution, International Law, and Municipal Law, to say nothing of
Republican Government in its primary principles, are all subordinated
to the Presidential will; and this is Personal Government. Add an
insensibility to the honest convictions of others, and you have a
natural feature of this pretension.

Lawyers cite what are called “Leading Cases.” A few of these show the
Presidential will in constant operation with little regard to precedent
or reason, so as to be a caprice, if it were not a pretension.
Imitating the Popes in Nepotism, the President has imitated them in
ostentatious assumption of Infallibility.

THE PRESIDENT’S INAUGURAL ADDRESS.

Other Presidents have entered upon their high office with a
certain modesty and distrust. Washington in his Inaugural Address
declared his “anxieties,” also his sense of “the magnitude and
difficulty of the trust,” “awakening a distrustful scrutiny into his
qualifications.”[114] Jefferson, in his famous Inaugural, so replete
with political wisdom, after declaring his “sincere consciousness that
the task is above his talents,” says: “I approach it with those anxious
and awful presentiments which the greatness of the charge and the
weakness of my powers so justly inspire, … and humble myself before the
magnitude of the undertaking.”[115]

Our soldier, absolutely untried in civil life, entirely a new man,
entering upon the sublimest duties, before which Washington and
Jefferson had shrunk, said in his Inaugural: “The responsibilities
of the position I feel, but _accept them without fear_.”[116] Great
predecessors, with ample preparation for the responsibilities,
had shrunk back with fear. He had none. Either he did not see the
responsibilities, or the Cæsar began to stir in his bosom.

SELECTION OF HIS CABINET.

Next after the Inaugural Address, his first official act was the
selection of his Cabinet; and here the general disappointment was
equalled by the general wonder. As the President was little known
except from the victories which had commended him, it was not then
seen how completely characteristic was this initial act. Looking back
upon it, we recognize the pretension by which all tradition, usage,
and propriety were discarded, by which the just expectations of the
party that had elected him were set at nought, and the safeguards of
constitutional government were subordinated to the personal pretensions
of One Man. In this Cabinet were persons having small relations
with the Republican Party and little position in the country, some
absolutely without claims from public service, and some actually
disqualified by the gifts they had made to the President. Such was
the political phenomenon presented for the first time in American
history, while reported sayings of the President showed the simplicity
with which he acted. To a committee he described his Cabinet as his
“family,” with which no stranger could be allowed to interfere, and
to a member of Congress he announced that he selected his Cabinet “to
please himself and nobody else,”--being good rules unquestionably
for the organization of a household and the choice of domestics, to
which the Cabinet seem to have been likened. This personal government
flowered in the Navy Department, where a gift-bearing Greek was
suddenly changed to a Secretary. No less a personage than the grand
old Admiral, the brave, yet modest Farragut, was reported as asking,
on the fifth of March, the very day when the Cabinet was announced,
in unaffected ignorance, “Do you know anything of Borie?” And yet
this unconspicuous citizen, bearer of gifts to the President, was
constituted the naval superior of that historic character. If others
were less obscure, the Cabinet as a unit was none the less notable as
the creature of Presidential will, where Chance vied with Favoritism as
arbiter.

All this is so strange, when we consider the true idea of a Cabinet.
Though not named in the Constitution, yet by virtue of unbroken usage
among us, and in harmony with constitutional governments everywhere,
the Cabinet has become a constitutional body, hardly less than if
expressly established by the Constitution itself. Its members, besides
being the heads of great departments, are the counsellors of the
President, with the duty to advise him of all matters within the sphere
of his office, being nothing less than the great catalogue in the
Preamble of the Constitution, beginning with duty to the Union, and
ending with the duty to secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves
and our posterity. Besides undoubted fitness for these exalted
responsibilities, as head of a department and as counsellor, a member
should have such acknowledged position in the country that his presence
inspires confidence and gives strength to the Administration. How
little these things were regarded by the President need not be said.

Unquestionably the President has a discretion in the appointment of
his Cabinet; but it is a constitutional discretion, regulated by
regard for the interests of the country and not by mere personal
will, by statesmanship and not by favoritism. A Cabinet is a national
institution and not a Presidential perquisite,--unless our President is
allowed to copy the example of Imperial France. In all constitutional
governments, the Cabinet is selected on public reasons, and with a
single eye to the public service; it is not in any respect the “family”
of the sovereign, nor is it “to please himself and nobody else.”
English monarchs have often accepted statesmen personally disagreeable,
when they had become representatives of the prevailing party,--as
when George the Third, the most obstinate of rulers, accepted Fox,
and George the Fourth, as prejudiced as his father was obstinate,
accepted Canning, each bringing to the service commanding faculties.
It is related that the Duke of Wellington, with military frankness,
encountered the personal objections of the King in the latter case,
by saying: “Your Majesty is the sovereign of England, with duties to
your people far above any to yourself; and these duties render it
imperative that you should at this time employ the abilities of Mr.
Canning.”[117] By such instances in a constitutional government is the
Cabinet fixed as a constitutional and not a personal body. It is only
by some extraordinary hallucination that the President of a Republic
dedicated to Constitutional Liberty can imagine himself invested with
a transforming prerogative above that of any English sovereign, by
which his counsellors are changed from public officers to personal
attendants, and a great constitutional body, in which all citizens have
a common interest, is made a perquisite of the President.

APPROPRIATION OF THE OFFICES.

Marked among the spectacles which followed, and kindred in character
with the appropriation of the Cabinet as individual property, was
the appropriation of the offices of the country, to which I refer in
this place even at the expense of repetition. Obscure and undeserving
relations, marriage connections, personal retainers, army associates,
friends of unknown fame and notable only as personal friends or friends
of his relations, evidently absorbed the Presidential mind during
those months of obdurate reticence when a generous people supposed
the Cabinet to be the all-absorbing thought. Judging by the facts, it
would seem as if the chief and most spontaneous thought was how to
exploit the appointing power to his own personal behoof. At this period
the New York Custom-House presented itself to the imagination, and a
letter was written consigning a military dependant to the generosity of
the Collector. You know the rest. Dr. Johnson, acting as executor in
selling the distillery of Mr. Thrale, said: “We are not here to sell a
parcel of boilers and vats, but the potentiality of growing rich beyond
the dreams of avarice.”[118] If the President did not use the sounding
phrase of the great English moralist, it is evident that his military
dependant felt in that letter all the “potentiality” advertised in the
earlier case, and acted accordingly.

It is not necessary to say that in these things there was departure
from the requirements of law, whether in the appointment of his Cabinet
or of personal favorites, even in return for personal benefactions,
although it was plainly unrepublican, offensive, and indefensible. But
this same usurping spirit, born of an untutored egotism, brooking no
restraint, showed itself in another class of transactions, to which I
have already referred, where Law and Constitution were little regarded.

PRESIDENTIAL ASSAULT ON A SAFEGUARD OF THE TREASURY.

First in time and very indigenous in character was the Presidential
attempt against one of the sacred safeguards of the Treasury, the
original workmanship of Alexander Hamilton, being nothing less than
the “Act to establish the Treasury Department.” Here was an important
provision, “that no person appointed to any office instituted by this
Act shall directly or indirectly be concerned or interested in carrying
on the business of trade or commerce”; and any person so offending was
declared guilty of a high misdemeanor, and was to forfeit to the United
States three thousand dollars, with removal from office, and forever
thereafter to be incapable of holding any office under the United
States.[119] From the beginning this statute had stood unquestioned,
until it had acquired the character of fundamental law. And yet the
President, by a special message, dated March 6, 1869, being the
second day of his first service as a civilian, asked Congress to set
it aside, so as to enable Mr. Stewart, of New York already nominated
and confirmed as Secretary of the Treasury, to enter upon the duties
of this office.[120] This gentleman was unquestionably the largest
merchant who had transacted business in our country, and his imports
were of such magnitude as to clog the custom-house. If the statute was
anything but one of those cobwebs which catch the weak, but yield to
the rich, this was the occasion for it, and the President should have
yielded to no temptation against it. The indecorum of his effort stands
out more painfully when it is considered that the merchant for whom he
wished to set aside a time-honored safeguard was one of those from whom
he had received gifts.

Such was the accommodating disposition of the Senate, that a bill
exempting the Presidential benefactor from the operation of the statute
was promptly introduced, and even read twice, until, as it seemed
about to pass, I felt it my duty to object to its consideration,
saying, according to the Globe, “I think it ought to be most profoundly
considered before it is acted on by the Senate.”[121] This objection
caused its postponement. The country was startled. By telegraph the
general anxiety was communicated to Washington. Three days later the
President sent a message requesting permission to withdraw the former
message.[122] But he could not withdraw the impression produced by such
open disregard of the law to promote his personal desire.

ILLEGAL MILITARY RING AT THE EXECUTIVE MANSION.

The military spirit, which failed in the effort to set aside a
fundamental law as if it were a transient order, was more successful at
the Executive Mansion, which at once assumed the character of military
head-quarters. To the dishonor of the civil service, and in total
disregard of precedent, the President surrounded himself with officers
of the Army, and substituted military forms for those of civil life,
detailing for this service members of his late staff. The earliest
public notice of this military occupation appeared in the “Daily
Morning Chronicle” of March 8, 1869, understood to be the official
organ of the Administration:--

“President Grant was not at the White House yesterday, but the
following members of his staff were occupying the Secretaries’
rooms and acting as such: Generals Babcock, Porter, Badeau, and
Dent.”

This is to be regarded not only in its strange blazonry of the
Presidential pretension, but also as the first apparition of that minor
_military ring_ in which the President has lived ever since.

Thus installed, Army officers became secretaries of the President,
delivering his messages to both Houses of Congress, and even
authenticating Presidential acts as if they were military orders. Here,
for instance, is an official communication:--

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, D. C.,
March 15, 1869.

ROBERT MARTIN DOUGLAS, Esq.:

SIR,--You are hereby appointed Assistant Private Secretary to the
President, to date from the 15th March, 1869.

By order of the President,

HORACE PORTER,
_Brevet Brigadier-General, Secretary_.[123]

Mark the words, “By order of the President,” and then the signature,
“Horace Porter, Brevet Brigadier-General, Secretary.”

The Presidential pretension which I exhibit on the simple facts,
besides being of doubtful legality, to say the least, was of evil
example, demoralizing alike to the military and civil service, and
an undoubted reproach to republican institutions in that primary
principle, announced by Jefferson in his first Inaugural Address,
“the supremacy of the civil over the military authority.”[124] It
seemed only to remain that the President should sign his Messages,
“Commander-in-Chief of the Army of the United States.” Evidently a new
order of things had arrived.

Observe the mildness of my language, when I call this Presidential
pretension “of doubtful legality.” The law shall speak for itself.
Obviously it was the same for our military President as for his
predecessors, and it was recent also:--

“The President is hereby authorized to appoint a private secretary
at an annual salary of $3,500, an assistant secretary at an annual
salary of $2,500, a short-hand writer at an annual salary of
$2,500, a clerk of pardons at an annual salary of $2,000, and three
clerks of the fourth class.”[125]

It cannot be doubted that this provision was more than ample; for
Congress, by Act of July 20, 1868, repealed so much as authorized
a clerk of pardons, and also one of the three clerks of the fourth
class.[126] Therefore there could be no necessity for a levy of
soldiers to perform the duties of secretaries, and the conduct of the
President can be explained only by the supposition that he preferred
to be surrounded by Army officers rather than by civilians, continuing
in the Executive Mansion the traditions of head-quarters: all which,
though agreeable to him and illustrating his character, was an anomaly
and a scandal.

In extenuation of this indefensible pretension, we have been reminded
of two things: first, that according to the record Washington sent
his first message by General Knox,--when in fact General Knox held
no military office at that time, but was actually Secretary of War;
and, secondly, that the military officers now occupying the Executive
Mansion are detailed for this service without other salary than that of
their grade. As the Knox precedent is moonshine, the minor military
ring can be vindicated only as a “detail” for service in the Executive
Mansion.

Here again the law shall speak. By Act of Congress of March 3, 1863, it
is provided that “details to special service shall only be made with
the consent of the commanding officer of forces in the field”;[127] but
this, it will be seen, refers to a state of war. Congress, by Act of
July 16, 1866, authorized the President to “detail from the Army all
the officers and agents of this Bureau” [for the Relief of Freedmen and
Refugees];[128] also, by Act of July 28, 1866, to “detail” officers
of the Army, not exceeding twenty at any time, “to act as president,
superintendent, or professor” in certain colleges.[129] And then
again, by Act of July 15, 1870, it provided that “any retired officer
may, on his own application, be detailed to serve as professor in any
college.”[130] As there is no other statute authorizing details, this
exceptional transfer of Army officers to the Executive Mansion can be
maintained only on some undefined prerogative.

The Presidential pretension, which is continued to the present time,
is the more unnatural when it is considered that there are at least
three different statutes in which Congress has shown its purpose to
limit the employment of military officers in civil service. As long
ago as July 5, 1838, it was positively provided that no Army officers
should be separated from their regiments and corps “for employment on
civil works of internal improvement, or be allowed to engage in the
service of incorporated companies”; nor any line officer to be acting
paymaster or disbursing agent for the Indian Department, “if such
extra employment require that he be separated from his regiment or
company, or otherwise interfere with the performance of the military
duties proper.”[131] Obviously the will of Congress is here declared,
that officers should not be allowed to leave their posts for any
service which might _interfere with the performance of the military
duties proper_. This language is explicit. Then came the Act of March
30, 1868, which provides that “any officer of the Army or Navy of
the United States, who shall, after the passage of this Act, accept
or hold any appointment in the diplomatic or consular service of the
Government, shall be considered as having resigned his said office,
and the place held by him in the military or naval service shall be
deemed and taken to be vacant.”[132] To a considerate and circumspect
President, who recognized the law in its spirit as well as its letter,
this provision, especially when reinforced by the earlier statute,
would have been a rule of action in analogous cases, and therefore an
insurmountable obstacle to a pretension which takes Army officers from
their proper duties and makes them Presidential secretaries. A later
statute adds to the obstacle. By Act of Congress of July 15, 1870, it
is provided:--

“That it shall not be lawful for any officer of the Army of the
United States on the active list _to hold any civil office, whether
by election or appointment_; and any such officer _accepting or
exercising the functions of a civil office_ shall at once cease
to be an officer of the Army, and his commission shall be vacated
thereby.”[133]

It is difficult to imagine anything plainer than these words. No
Army officer not on the retired list can hold any civil office; and
then, to enforce the inhibition, it is provided that in “accepting or
exercising the functions” of such office the commission is vacated.
Now the Blue Book, which is our political almanac, has under the head
of “Executive Mansion” a list of “secretaries” and “clerks,” beginning
as follows: “Secretaries, General F. T. Dent, General Horace Porter,
General O. E. Babcock,” when, in fact, there are no such officers
authorized by law. Then follow the “Private Secretary,” “Assistant
Private Secretary,” and “Executive Clerks,” authorized by law, but
placed below those unauthorized. Nothing is said of being detailed for
this purpose. They are openly called “Secretaries,” which is a title of
office; and since it is at the Executive Mansion, it must be a civil
office; and yet, in defiance of law, these Army officers continue
to exercise its functions, and some of them enter the Senate with
messages from the President. The apology that they are “detailed” for
this service is vain; no authority can be shown for it. But how absurd
to suppose that a rule against the exercise of a civil office can be
evaded by a “detail”! If it may be done for three Army officers, why
not for three dozen? Nay, more, if the civil office of Secretary at
the Executive Mansion may be created without law, why not some other
civil office? And what is to hinder the President from surrounding
himself not only with secretaries, but with messengers, stewards, and
personal attendants, even a body-guard, all detailed from the Army?
Why may he not enlarge the military circle at the Executive Mansion
indefinitely? If the President can be justified in his present course,
there is no limit to his pretensions in open violation of the statute.
Here the Blue Book testifies again; for it records the names of the
“secretaries” in their proper places as Army officers,--thus presenting
them as holding two incompatible offices.

I dismiss this transaction as another instance of Presidential
pretension, which, in the interest of Republican Government, should be
arrested.

UNREPUBLICAN SUBORDINATION OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT TO THE
GENERAL-IN-CHIEF.

From the Executive Mansion pass now to the War Department, and there
we witness the same Presidential pretensions by which law, usage, and
correct principle are lost in the will of One Man. The supremacy of the
civil power over the military is typified in the Secretary of War, a
civilian, from whom Army officers receive orders. But this beautiful
rule, with its lesson to the military of subordination, was suddenly
set aside by our President, and the Secretary of War degraded to be
a clerk. The 5th of March witnessed a most important order from the
President, placing the Military Departments under officers of his
choice,--purporting to be signed by the Assistant Adjutant-General by
command of the General of the Army, but actually ignoring the Secretary
of War.[134] Three days later, March 8th, witnessed another order
professing to proceed from the President, whereby in express terms the
War Department was subordinated to the General-in-Chief, being William
T. Sherman, who at the time was promoted to that command. Here are the
words:

“The chiefs of staff corps, departments, and bureaus will report to
and act under the immediate orders of the General commanding the
Army.”[135]

This act of revolution, exalting the military power above the civil,
showed instant fruits in an order of the General, who, upon assuming
command, proceeded to place the several bureau officers of the War
Department upon his military staff,[136] so that for the time there
was a military dictatorship with the President at its head, not merely
in spirit but in actual form. By-and-by John A. Rawlins, a civilian by
education and a respecter of the Constitution, became Secretary of War,
and, though bound to the President by personal ties, he said, “Check
to the King.” By General Order, issued from the War Department March
26, 1869, and signed by the Secretary of War, the offensive order was
rescinded, and it was enjoined that “all official business which by
law or regulations requires the action of the President or Secretary
of War will be submitted by the chiefs of staff corps, departments,
and bureaus to the Secretary of War.”[137] Public report said that
this restoration of the civil power to its rightful supremacy was
not obtained without an intimation of resignation on the part of the
Secretary.

THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY BY DEPUTY.

Kindred in character was the unprecedented attempt to devolve the
duties of the Navy Department upon a deputy, so that orders were to be
signed “A. E. Borie, Secretary of the Navy, per D. D. Porter, Admiral,”
as appears in the official journal of May 11, 1869,--or, according to
another instance, “David D. Porter, Vice-Admiral, for the Secretary
of the Navy.” The obvious object of this illegal arrangement was to
enable the incumbent, who stood high on the list of gift-makers,
to be Secretary without being troubled with the business of the
office. Notoriously he was an invalid, unused to public business,
who, according to his own confession, modestly pleaded that he could
not apply himself to work more than an hour a day; but the President
soothed his anxieties by promising a deputy who would do the work. And
thus was this great department made a plaything; but public opinion
and other counsels arrested the sport. Here I mention, that, when this
incumbent left his important post, it is understood that he was allowed
to nominate his successor.

PRESIDENTIAL PRETENSION AT THE INDIAN BUREAU.

At the same time occurred the effort to absorb the Indian Bureau
into the War Department, changing its character as part of the civil
service. Congress had already repudiated such an attempt;[138] but
the President, not disheartened by legislative failure, sought to
accomplish it by manipulation and indirection. First elevating a
member of his late staff to the head of the Bureau, he then, by
a military order dated May 7, 1869,[139] proceeded to detail for
the Indian service a long list of “officers left out of their
regimental organizations by the consolidation of the infantry
regiments,”--assuming to do this by authority of the Act of Congress
of June 30, 1834, which, after declaring the number of Indian agents,
and how they shall be appointed, provides that “it shall be competent
for the President to require any military officer of the United States
to execute the duties of Indian agent.”[140] Obviously this provision
had reference to some exceptional exigency, and can be no authority for
the general substitution of military officers, instead of civilians
confirmed by the Senate and bound with sureties for the faithful
discharge of their duties. And yet upward of sixty Army officers were
in this way foisted into the Indian service. The Act of Congress of
July 15, 1870, already quoted,[141] creating an incompatibility between
military and civil service, was aimed partly at this abuse, and these
officers ceased to be Indian agents. But this attempt is another
illustration of Presidential pretension.

MILITARY INTERFERENCE AT ELECTIONS.

Then followed military interference in elections, and the repeated
use of the military in aid of the revenue law under circumstances of
doubtful legality, until at last General Halleck and General Sherman
protested: the former in his report of October 24, 1870, saying, “I
respectfully repeat the recommendation of my last Annual Report, that
military officers should not interfere in local civil difficulties,
unless called out in the manner provided by law;”[142] and the latter,
in his Report of November 10, 1870, “I think the soldiers ought
not to be expected to make individual arrests, or to do any act of
violence, except in their organized capacity as a _posse comitatus_
duly summoned by the United States marshal, and acting in his personal
presence.”[143] And so this military pretension, invading civil
affairs, was arrested.

PRESIDENTIAL PRETENSION AGAIN.

Meanwhile this same Presidential usurpation, subordinating all to
himself, became palpable in another form. It was said of Gustavus
Adolphus, that he drilled his Diet to vote at the word of command.
Such at the outset seemed to be the Presidential policy with regard
to Congress. We were to vote as he desired. He did not like the
Tenure-of-Office Act, and during the first month of his administration
his influence was felt in both branches of Congress to secure its
repeal; all of which seemed more astonishing when it was considered
that he entered upon his high trust with the ostentatious avowal that
all laws would be faithfully executed, whether they met his approval or
not, and that he should have no policy to enforce against the will of
the people.[144] That beneficent statute, which he had upheld in the
impeachment of President Johnson, was a limitation on the Presidential
power of appointment, and he could not brook it. Here was plain
interference with his great perquisite of office, and Congress must be
coerced to repeal it. The House acted promptly and passed the desired
bill. In the Senate there was delay and a protracted debate, during
which the official journal announced: “The President, in conversation
with a prominent Senator a few days since, declared that it was his
intention not to send in any nominations of importance until definite
action was taken by Congress upon the Tenure-of-Office Bill.”[145]

Here I venture to add, that a member of the Cabinet pressed me to
withdraw my opposition to the repeal, saying that the President felt
strongly upon it. I could not understand how a Republican President
could consent to weaken the limitations upon the Executive, and so I
said,--adding, that in my judgment he should rather reach forth his
hands and ask to have them tied. Better always a government of law than
of men.

PRESIDENTIAL INTERFERENCE IN LOCAL POLITICS.

In this tyrannical spirit, and in the assumption of his central
imperialism, he has interfered with political questions and party
movements in distant States, reaching into Missouri, and then into
New York, to dictate how the people should vote, then manipulating
Louisiana through a brother-in-law appointed Collector. With him a
custom-house seems less a place for the collection of revenue than an
engine of political influence, through which his dictatorship may be
maintained.

Authentic testimony places this tyrannical abuse beyond question. New
York is the scene, and Thomas Murphy, Collector, the Presidential
lieutenant. Nobody doubts the intimacy between the President and
the Collector, who are bound in friendship by other ties than those
of seaside neighborhood. The Collector was determined to obtain the
control of the Republican State Convention, and appealed to a patriot
citizen for help, who replied, that in his judgment “it would be a
delicate matter for office-holders to undertake to dictate to the
associations in the different districts who should go from them to
the State Convention, and still more delicate to attempt to control
the judgments of men employed in the different departments as to the
best men to represent them.” The brave Collector lieutenant of the
President said, “that he should not hesitate to do it; that it was
General Grant’s wish, and General Grant was the head of the Republican
Party, and should be authority on this subject.”[146] Plainly, the
Republican Party was his perquisite, and all Republicans were to do
his bidding. From other testimony it appears that the President,
according to the statement of his lieutenant, “wanted to be represented
in the Convention,” being the Republican State Convention of New
York,--“wanted to have his friends there in the Convention”; and the
Presidential lieutenant, being none other than the famous Collector,
offered to appoint four men in the custom-house for the witness, if he
would secure the nomination of certain persons as delegates from his
district, and he promised “that he would immediately send their names
on to Washington and have them appointed.”[147] And so the Presidential
dictatorship was administered. Offices in the custom-house were openly
bartered for votes in the State Convention. Here was intolerable
tyranny, with demoralization like that of the slave-market.

But New York is not the only scene of this outrage. The Presidential
pretension extends everywhere; nor is it easy to measure the arrogance
of corruption or the honest indignation it quickens into life.

PRESIDENTIAL CONTRIVANCE AGAINST SAN DOMINGO.

These Presidential pretensions, in all their variety, personal and
military, with reckless indifference to law, naturally ripened in the
contrivance, nursed in hot-house secrecy, against the peace of the
island of San Domingo: I say deliberately, against the peace of that
island, for under the guise of annexing a portion there was menace
to the Black Republic of Hayti. This whole business, absolutely
indefensible from beginning to end, being wrong at every point, is the
special and most characteristic product of the Administration, into
which it infused and projected itself more than into anything else.
In this multiform disobedience we behold our President. Already I
have referred to this contrivance as marking an epoch in Presidential
pretensions. It is my duty now to show its true character as a warning
against its author.

A few weeks only after beginning his career as a civilian, and while
occupied with military usurpations and the perquisites of office, he
was tempted by overtures of Dominican plotters, headed by the usurper
Baez and the speculator Cazneau: the first an adventurer, conspirator,
and trickster, described by one who knows him well as “the worst man
living of whom he has any personal knowledge”;[148] and the second,
one of our own countrymen, long resident on the island, known as
disloyal throughout the war, and entirely kindred in character to Baez.
Listening to these prompters, and without one word in Congress or in
the press suggesting annexion of the island or any part of it, the
President began his contrivance; and here we see abuse in every form
and at every step, absolutely without precedent in our history.

The agent in this transaction was Orville E. Babcock, a young officer
figuring in the Blue Book of the time as one of the unauthorized
“secretaries” at the Executive Mansion, and also as a major of
engineers. His published instructions, under date of July 13, 1869,
were simply to make inquiries; but the plot appears in a communication
of the same date from the Secretary of the Navy, directed to the
Seminole, a war-ship, with an armament of one eleven-inch gun and four
thirty-two pounders, “to give him the _moral support_ of its guns”; and
this was followed by a telegraphic instruction to Key West for another
war-ship “to proceed without a moment’s delay to San Domingo City, to
be placed at the disposal of General Babcock while on that coast.”[149]
With such “moral support” the emissary of the President obtained from
the usurper Baez that famous Protocol stipulating the annexion of
Dominica to the United States in consideration of $1,500,000, which the
young officer, fresh from the Executive Mansion, professed to execute
as “Aide-de-Camp to his Excellency General Ulysses S. Grant, President
of the United States,”--as if, instead of Chief Magistrate of a
Republic, the President were a military chieftain with his foot in the
stirrup, surrounded by a military staff. The same instrument contained
the unblushing stipulation, that “his Excellency General Grant,
President of the United States, promises, _privately, to use all his
influence_, in order that 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”:[150]
which is simply that the President shall become a lobbyist to bring
about the annexion by Congress. Such was the strange beginning,
illegal, unconstitutional, and offensive in every particular, but
showing the Presidential character.

On his return to Washington, the young officer, who had assumed to be
“Aide-de-Camp to his Excellency General Ulysses S. Grant,” and had
bound the President to become a lobbyist for a wretched scheme, instead
of being disowned and reprimanded, was sent back to the usurper with
instructions to negotiate two treaties,--one for the annexion of the
half-island of Dominica, and the other for the lease of the Bay of
Samana.[151] By the Constitution of the United States “ambassadors and
other public ministers” are appointed by the President by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate; but our Aide-de-Camp had no such
commission. Presidential prerogative empowered him. Nor was naval
force wanting. With three war-ships at his disposal,[152] he concluded
negotiations with Baez and obtained the two treaties. Naturally force
was needed to keep the usurper in power while he sold his country,
and naturally such a transaction required a Presidential Aide-de-Camp
unknown to Constitution or Law, rather than a civilian duly appointed
according to both.

PRESIDENTIAL VIOLATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW.

On other occasions it has been my solemn duty to expose the outrages
which attended this hateful business, where at each step we are brought
face to face with Presidential pretension: first, in the open seizure
of the war powers of the Government, as if he were already Cæsar,
forcibly intervening in Dominica and menacing war to Hayti, all of
which is proved by the official reports of the State Department and
Navy Department, being nothing less than war by kingly prerogative,
in defiance of that distinctive principle of Republican Government,
first embodied in our Constitution, which places the war powers under
the safeguard of the legislative branch, making any attempt by the
President “to declare war” an undoubted usurpation. But our President,
like Gallio, cares for none of these things. The open violation of the
Constitution was naturally followed by a barefaced disregard of that
equality of nations which is the first principle of International Law,
as the equality of men is the first principle of the Declaration of
Independence; and this sacred rule was set aside in order to insult and
menace Hayti, doing unto the Black Republic what we would not have that
Republic do unto us, nor what we would have done to any white power.
To these eminent and most painful Presidential pretensions, the first
adverse to the Constitution and the second adverse to International
Law, add the imprisonment of an American citizen in Dominica by the
Presidential confederate, Baez, for fear of his hostility to the
treaty, if he were allowed to reach New York,--all of which was
known to his subordinates, Babcock and Cazneau, and doubtless to
himself. What was the liberty of an American citizen compared with the
Presidential prerogative? To one who had defied the Constitution, on
which depends the liberty of all, and then defied International Law,
on which depends the peace of the world, a single citizen immured in a
distant dungeon was of small moment. But this is only an illustration.
Add now the lawless occupation of the Bay of Samana for many months
after the lapse of the treaty, keeping the national flag flying there,
and assuming a territorial sovereignty which did not exist. Then add
the protracted support of Baez in his usurped power, to the extent of
placing the national flag at his disposal, and girdling the island with
our ships of war, all at immense cost, and to the neglect of other
service where the Navy was needed.

This strange succession of acts, which, if established for a precedent,
would overturn Constitution and Law, was followed by another class of
Presidential manifestations: first, an unseemly importunity of Senators
during the pendency of the treaty, visiting the Capitol as a lobbyist,
and summoning them to his presence in squads, in obvious pursuance
of the stipulation made by his Aide-de-Camp and never disowned by
him,--being intervention in the Senate, reinforced by all the influence
of the appointing power, whether by reward or menace, all of which was
as unconstitutional in character as that warlike intervention on the
island; and then, after debate in the Senate, when the treaty was lost
on solemn vote, we were called to witness his self-willed effrontery
in prosecuting the fatal error, returning to the charge in his Annual
Message at the ensuing session, insisting upon his contrivance as
nothing less than the means by which “our large debt abroad is
ultimately to be extinguished,” and gravely charging the Senate with
“folly” in rejecting the treaty,--and yet, while making this astounding
charge against a coördinate branch of Government, and claiming such
astounding profits, he blundered geographically in describing the
prize.[153]

All this diversified performance, with its various eccentricity of
effort, failed. The report of able commissioners transported to the
island in an expensive war-ship ended in nothing. The American people
rose against the undertaking and insisted upon its abandonment. By a
message charged with Parthian shafts the President at length announced
that he would proceed no further in this business.[154] His senatorial
partisans, being a majority of the Chamber, after denouncing those
who had exposed the business, arrested the discussion. In obedience
to irrepressible sentiments, and according to the logic of my life, I
felt it my duty to speak; but the President would not forgive me, and
his peculiar representatives found me disloyal to the party which I had
served so long and helped to found. Then was devotion to the President
made the shibboleth of party.

WHERE WAS THE GRAND INQUEST OF THE NATION?

Such is a summary of the San Domingo business in its characteristic
features. But here are transgressions in every form,--open violation of
the Constitution in more than one essential requirement; open violation
of International Law in more than one of its most beautiful principles;
flagrant insult to the Black Republic, with menace of war; complicity
with the wrongful imprisonment of an American citizen; lawless
assumption of territorial sovereignty in a foreign jurisdiction;
employment of the national navy to sustain a usurper,--being all acts
of substance, maintained by an agent calling himself “Aide-de-Camp to
Ulysses S. Grant, President of the United States,” and stipulating
that his chief should play the lobbyist to help the contrivance
through Congress, then urged by private appeals to Senators, and
the influence of the appointing power tyrannically employed by the
Presidential lobbyist, and finally urged anew in an Annual Message,
where undisguised insult to the Senate vies with absurdity in declaring
prospective profits and with geographical ignorance. Such, in brief,
is this multiform disobedience, where every particular is of such
aggravation as to merit the most solemn judgment. Why the grand inquest
of the nation, which brought Andrew Johnson to the bar of the Senate,
should have slept on this conglomerate misdemeanor, every part of
which was offensive beyond any technical offence charged against his
predecessor, while it had a background of nepotism, gift-taking with
official compensation, and various Presidential pretensions beyond all
precedent,--all this will be one of the riddles of American history,
to be explained only by the extent to which the One-Man Power had
succeeded in subjugating the Government.

INDIGNITY TO THE AFRICAN RACE.

Let me confess, Sir, that, while at each stage I have felt this
tyranny most keenly, and never doubted that it ought to be arrested
by impeachment, my feelings have been most stirred by the outrage to
Hayti, which, besides being a wrong to the Black Republic, was an
insult to the colored race, not only abroad, but here at home. How a
Chief Magistrate with four millions of colored fellow-citizens could
have done this thing passes comprehension. Did he suppose it would not
be known? Did he imagine it could be hushed in official pigeonholes?
Or was he insensible to the true character of his own conduct? The
facts are indisputable. For more than two generations Hayti had been
independent, entitled under International Law to equality among
nations, and since Emancipation in our country commended to us as an
example of self-government, being the first in the history of the
African race and the promise of the future. And yet our President, in
his effort to secure that Naboth’s Vineyard on which he had set his
eyes, not content with maintaining the usurper Baez in power, occupying
the harbors of Dominica with war-ships, sent other war-ships, being
none other than our most powerful monitor, the Dictator, with the
frigate Severn as consort, and with yet other monitors in their train,
to strike at the independence of the Black Republic, and to menace it
with war. Do I err in any way, am I not entirely right, when I say
that here was unpardonable outrage to the African race? As one who for
years has stood by the side of this much-oppressed people, sympathizing
always in their woes and struggling for them, I felt the blow which the
President dealt, and it became the more intolerable from the heartless
attempts to defend it. Alas, that our President should be willing to
wield the giant strength of the Great Republic in trampling upon the
representative government of the African race! Alas, that he did not
see the infinite debt of friendship, kindness, and protection due to
that people, so that instead of monitors and war-ships, breathing
violence, he had sent a messenger of peace and good-will!

This outrage was followed by an incident in which the same sentiments
were revealed. Frederick Douglass, remarkable for his intelligence as
for his eloquence, and always agreeable in personal relations, whose
only offence is a skin not entirely Caucasian, was selected by the
President to accompany the Commissioners to San Domingo,--and yet on
his return, and almost within sight of the Executive Mansion, he was
repelled from the common table of the mail-steamer on the Potomac,
where his companions were already seated; and thus through him was the
African race insulted and their equal rights denied. But the President,
whose commission he had borne, neither did nor said anything to right
this wrong, and a few days later, when entertaining the Commissioners
at the Executive Mansion, actually forgot the colored orator whose
services he had sought.[155] But this indignity is in unison with the
rest. After insulting the Black Republic, it is easy to see how natural
it was to treat with insensibility the representative of the African
race.

ALL THESE THINGS IN ISSUE NOW.

Here I stay this painful catalogue in its various heads, beginning
with nepotism and gift-taking with repayment by office, and ending
in the contrivance against San Domingo with indignity to the African
race,--not because it is complete, but because it is enough. With
sorrow unspeakable have I made this exposure of pretensions, which,
for the sake of republican institutions, every good citizen should
wish expunged from history; but I had no alternative. The President
himself insists upon putting them in issue; he will not allow them
to be forgotten. As a candidate for reëlection he invites judgment,
while partisans acting in his behalf make it absolutely necessary by
the brutality of their assault on faithful Republicans unwilling to
see their party, like the Presidential office, a personal perquisite.
If his partisans are exacting, vindictive, and unjust, they act only
in harmony with his nature, too truly represented in them. There is
not a ring, whether military or senatorial, that does not derive its
distinctive character from himself. Therefore, what they do and what
they say must be considered as done and said by the chieftain they
serve. And here is a new manifestation of that sovereign egotism which
no taciturnity can cover up, and a new motive for inquiry into its
pernicious influence.

THE GREAT PRESIDENTIAL QUARRELLER.

Any presentment of the President would be imperfect which did not show
how this ungovernable personality breaks forth in quarrel, making him
the great Presidential quarreller of our history. As in nepotism,
gift-taking with repayment by office, and Presidential pretensions
generally, here again he is foremost, having quarrelled not only more
than any other President, but more than all others together, from
George Washington to himself. His own Cabinet, the Senate, the House
of Representatives, the diplomatic service, and the civil service
generally, all have their victims, nearly every one of whom, besides
serving the Republican Party, had helped to make him President.
Nor have Army officers, his companions in the field, or even his
generous patrons, been exempt. To him a quarrel is not only a constant
necessity, but a perquisite of office. To nurse a quarrel, like tending
a horse, is in his list of Presidential duties. How idle must he be,
should the words of Shakespeare be fulfilled, “This day all quarrels
die”![156] To him may be applied those other words of Shakespeare, “As
quarrellous as the weasel.”[157]

Evidently our President has never read the Eleventh Commandment: “A
President of the United States shall never quarrel.” At least he lives
in perpetual violation of it, listening to stories from horse-cars,
gobbling the gossip of his military ring, discoursing on imaginary
griefs, and nursing an unjust anger. The elect of forty millions of
people has no right to quarrel with anybody. His position is too
exalted. He cannot do it without offence to the requirements of
patriotism, without a shock to the decencies of life, without a jar to
the harmony of the universe. If lesson were needed for his conduct,
he might find it in that king of France who on ascending the throne
made haste to declare that he did not remember injuries received as
Dauphin.[158] Perhaps a better model still would be Tancred, the
acknowledged type of the perfect Christian knight, who “disdained
to speak ill of whoever it might be, even when ill had been spoken
of himself.”[159] Our soldier President could not err in following
this knightly example. If this were too much, then at least might we
hope that he would consent to limit the sphere of his quarrelsome
operations so that the public service might not be disturbed. Of this
be assured,--in every quarrel he is the offender, according to the
fact, as according to every reasonable presumption; especially is he
responsible for its continuance. The President can always choose his
relations with any citizen. But he chooses discord. With the arrogance
of arms he resents any impediment in his path,--as when, in the spring
of 1870, without allusion to himself, I felt it my duty to oppose his
San Domingo contrivance. The verse of Juvenal, as translated by Dryden,
describes his conduct:--

“Poor me he fights,--if that be fighting where
He only cudgels and I only bear.
…
Answer or answer not, ’tis all the same,
He lays me on and makes me bear the blame.”[160]

Another scholarly translator gives to this description of the
Presidential quarrel another form, which is also applicable:--

“If that be deemed a quarrel, where, Heaven knows,
He only gives and I receive the blows;
Across my path he strides and bids me Stand!--
I bow obsequious to the dread command.”[161]

If the latter verse is not entirely true in my case, something must be
pardoned to that Liberty in which I was born.

Men take their places in history according to their deeds. The flattery
of life is then superseded by the truthful record, and rulers do not
escape judgment. Louis the Tenth of France has the designation of _Le
Hutin_, or “The Quarreller,” by which he is known in the long line of
French kings. And so in the long line of American Chief-Magistrates
has our President vindicated for himself the same title. He must wear
it. The French monarch was younger than our President; but there are
other points in his life which are not without parallel. According
to a contemporary chronicle, he was “well disposed, but not very
attentive to the needs of the kingdom”;[162] and then again it was his
rare fortune to sign one of the greatest ordinances of French history,
declaring that “according to the Law of Nature every one must be
born free”;[163] but the Quarreller was in no respect author of this
illustrious act, and was moved to its adoption by considerations of
personal advantage. It will be for impartial History to determine if
our Quarreller, who treated his great office as a personal perquisite,
and all his life long was against that Enfranchisement to which he put
his name, does not fall into the same category.

DUTY OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

And now the question of Duty is distinctly presented to the Republican
Party. I like that word. It is at the mandate of Duty that we must
act. Do the Presidential pretensions merit the sanction of the party?
Can Republicans, without departing from all obligations, whether
of party or patriotism, recognize our ambitious Cæsar as a proper
representative? Can we take the fearful responsibility of his prolonged
empire? I put these questions solemnly, as a member of the Republican
Party, with all the earnestness of a life devoted to the triumph of
this party, but which I served always with the conviction that I
gave up nothing that was meant for country or mankind. With me, the
party was country and mankind; but with the adoption of all these
Presidential pretensions the party loses its distinctive character and
drops from its sphere. Its creed ceases to be Republicanism and becomes
Grantism; its members cease to be Republicans and become Grant-men. It
is no longer a _political_ party, but a _personal_ party. For myself, I
say openly, I am no man’s _man_, nor do I belong to any personal party.

ONE TERM FOR PRESIDENT.

The attempt to change the character of the Republican Party begins by
assault on the principle of One Term for President. Therefore must
our support of this requirement be made manifest; and here we have
the testimony of our President, and what is stronger, his example,
showing the necessity of such limitation. Authentic report attests that
before his nomination he declared that “the liberties of the country
cannot be maintained without a One-Term Amendment of the Constitution.”
At this time Mr. Wade was pressing this very Amendment. Then after
his nomination, and while his election was pending, the organ of
the Republican Party at Washington, where he resided, commended him
constantly as faithful to the principle. The “Morning Chronicle” of
June 3, 1868, after the canvass had commenced, proclaimed of the
candidate,--

“_He is, moreover, an advocate of the One-Term principle_, as
conducing toward the proper administration of the law,--a principle
with which so many prominent Republicans have identified themselves
that it may be accepted as an article of party faith.”

Then again, July 14th, the same organ insisted,--

“Let not Congress adjourn without passing the One-Term Amendment to
the Constitution. There has never been so favorable an opportunity.
All parties are in favor of it.… _General Grant is in favor of it._
The party which supports General Grant demands it; and above all
else public morality calls for it.”

Considering that these pledges were made by an organ of the party, and
in his very presence, they may be accepted as proceeding from him.
His name must be added to the list with Andrew Jackson, William Henry
Harrison, Henry Clay, and Benjamin F. Wade, all of whom are enrolled
against the reëligibility of a President.

But his example as President is more than his testimony in showing
the necessity of this limitation. Andrew Jackson did not hesitate
to say that it was required in order to place the President “beyond
the reach of any improper influences,” and “uncommitted to any other
course than the strict line of constitutional duty.”[164] William Henry
Harrison followed in declaring that with the adoption of this principle
“the incumbent would devote all his time to the public interest, and
there would be no cause to misrule the country.”[165] Henry Clay was
satisfied, after much observation and reflection, “that too much of the
time, the thoughts, and the exertions of the incumbent are occupied
during his first term in securing his reëlection.”[166] Benjamin F.
Wade, after denouncing the reëligibility of the President, said:
“There are defects in the Constitution, and this is among the most
glaring.”[167]

And now our President by his example, besides his testimony,
vindicates all these authorities. He makes us see how all that has
been predicted of Presidents seeking reëlection is fulfilled: how
this desire dominates official conduct; how naturally the resources
of the Government are employed to serve a personal purpose; how the
national interests are subordinate to individual advancement; how
all questions, foreign or domestic, whether of treaties or laws, are
handled with a view to electoral votes; how the appointing power lends
itself to a selfish will, acting now by the temptation of office
and then by the menace of removal; and, since every office-holder
and every office-seeker has a brevet commission in the predominant
political party, how the President, desiring reëlection, becomes the
active head of three coöperating armies,--the army of office-holders,
eighty thousand strong, the larger army of office-seekers, and the
army of the political party, the whole constituting a consolidated
power which no candidate can possess without peril to his country.
Of these vast coöperating armies the President is commander-in-chief
and generalissimo. Through these he holds in submission even
Representatives and Senators, and makes the country his vassal with a
condition not unlike that of martial law, where the disobedient are
shot, while the various rings help secure the prize. That this is not
too strong appears from testimony before a Senate Committee, where a
Presidential lieutenant boldly denounced an eminent New York citizen,
who was a prominent candidate for Governor, as “obnoxious to General
Grant,”--and then, with an effrontery like the Presidential pretension,
announced that “President Grant was the representative and head of the
Republican Party, and all good Republicans should support him in all
his measures and appointments, and any one who did not do it should be
_crushed out_.”[168] Such things teach how wise were those statesmen
who would not subject the President to the temptation or even the
suspicion of using his vast powers in promoting personal ends.

Unquestionably the One-Man Power has increased latterly beyond
example,--owing partly to the greater facilities of intercourse,
especially by telegraph, so that the whole country is easily
reached,--partly to improvements in organization, by which distant
places are brought into unity,--and partly through the protracted
prevalence of the military spirit created by the war. There was a
time in English history when the House of Commons, on the motion of
the famous lawyer Mr. Dunning, adopted the resolution, “That the
influence of the Crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be
diminished.”[169] The same declaration is needed with regard to the
President; and the very words of the Parliamentary patriot may be
repeated. In his memorable speech, Mr. Dunning, after saying that he
did not rest “upon proof idle to require,” declared that the question
“must be decided by the consciences of those who as a jury were called
upon to determine what was or was not within their own knowledge.”[170]
It was on ground of notoriety cognizable to all that he acted. And
precisely on this ground, but also with specific proofs, do I insist
that the influence of the President has increased, is increasing, and
ought to be diminished. But in this excellent work, well worthy the
best efforts of all, nothing is more important than the limitation to
one term.

There is a demand for reform in the civil service, and the President
formally adopts this demand; but he neglects the first step, which
depends only on himself. From this we may judge his little earnestness
in the cause. Beyond all question Civil-Service Reform must begin by a
limitation of the President to one term, so that the temptation to use
the appointing power for personal ends may disappear from our system,
and this great disturbing force cease to exist. If the President is
sincere for reform, it will be easy for him to set the example by
declaring again his adhesion to the One-Term principle. But even if he
fails, we must do our duty.

Therefore, in opposing the prolonged power of the present incumbent,
I begin by insisting, that, for the good of the country, and without
reference to any personal failure, no President should be a candidate
for reëlection; and it is our duty now to set an example worthy of
republican institutions. In the name of the One-Term principle, once
recognized by him, and which needs no other evidence of its necessity
than his own Presidency, I protest against his attempt to obtain
another lease of power. But this protest is on the threshold.

HIS UNFITNESS FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL OFFICE.

I protest against him as radically unfit for the Presidential office,
being essentially military in nature, without experience in civil
life, without aptitude for civil duties, and without knowledge of
republican institutions,--all of which is perfectly apparent, unless we
are ready to assume that the matters and things set forth to-day are
of no account, and then, in further support of the candidate, boldly
declare that nepotism in a President is nothing, that gift-taking with
repayment in official patronage is nothing, that violation of the
Constitution and of International and Municipal Law is nothing, that
indignity to the African race is nothing, that quarrel with political
associates is nothing, and that all his Presidential pretensions in
their motley aggregation, being a new Cæsarism or personal government,
are nothing. But if these are all nothing, then is the Republican Party
nothing, nor is there any safeguard for Republican Institutions.

APOLOGIES FOR THE PRESIDENT.

Two apologies I hear. The first is that he means well, and errs
from want of knowledge. This is not much. It was said of Louis the
Quarreller, that he meant well; nor is there a slate head-stone in any
village burial-ground that does not record as much of the humble lodger
beneath. Something more is needed for a President. Nor can we afford to
perpetuate power in a ruler who errs so much from ignorance. Charity
for the past I concede, but no investiture for the future.

The other apology is, that his Presidency has been successful. How?
When? Where? Not to him can be attributed that general prosperity
which is the natural outgrowth of our people and country; for his
contribution is not traced in the abounding result. Our golden fields,
productive mines, busy industry, diversified commerce, owe nothing to
him. Show, then, his success. Is it in the finances? The national debt
has been reduced, but not to so large an amount as by Andrew Johnson
in the same space of time. Little merit is due to either, for each
employed the means allowed by Congress. To the American people is
this reduction due, and not to any President. And while our President
in this respect is no better than his predecessor, he can claim no
merit for any systematic effort to reduce taxation or restore specie
payments. Perhaps, then, it is in foreign relations that he claims
the laurels he is to wear. Knowing something of these from careful
study and years of practical acquaintance, I am bound to say that
never before has their management been so wanting in ability and so
absolutely without character. With so much pretension and so little
knowledge, how could it be otherwise? Here the President touches
nothing which he does not muddle. In every direction is muddle,--muddle
with Spain, muddle with Cuba, muddle with the Black Republic, muddle
with distant Corea, muddle with Venezuela, muddle with Russia, muddle
with England,--on all sides one diversified muddle. If there is not
muddle with Germany and France, it must be from their forbearance.
To this condition are we reduced. When before in our history have
we reached any such bathos as that to which we have been carried in
our questions with England? Are these the laurels for a Presidential
candidate?

But where else shall we look for them? Are they found on the Indian
frontier? Let the cry of massacre and blood from that distant region
answer. Are they in reform of the civil service? But here the initial
point is the limitation of the President to one term, so that he may
be placed above temptation; yet this he opposes. Evidently he is no
true reformer. Are these laurels found in the administration of the
Departments? Let the discreditable sale of arms to France in violation
of neutral duties and of municipal statute be the answer; and let
the custom-houses of New York and New Orleans, with their tales of
favoritism and of nepotism, and with their prostitution as agencies,
mercenary and political, echo back the answer; while senatorial
committees, organized contrary to a cardinal principle of Parliamentary
Law as a cover to these scandals, testify also. And again, let the War
Department recall the disappearance of important archives bearing on an
important event of the war, so that empty boxes remain like a coffin
without a corpse. Where, then, are the laurels? At last I find them,
fresh and brilliant, in the harmony which the President has preserved
among Republicans. Harmony, do I say? This should have been his
congenial task; nor would any aid or homage of mine have been wanting.
But instead he has organized discord, operating through a succession of
rings, and for laurels we find only weeds and thistles.

But I hear that he is successful in the States once in rebellion.
Strange that this should be said while we are harrowed by the reports
of Ku-Klux outrages. Here, as in paying the national debt, Congress has
been the effective power. Even the last extraordinary measure became
necessary, in my judgment, to supplement his little efficiency. Had
the President put into the protection of the colored people at the
South half the effort and earnest will with which he maintained his
San Domingo contrivance, the murderous Ku-Klux would have been driven
from the field and peace assured. Nor has he ever exhibited to the
colored people any true sympathy. His conduct to Frederick Douglass
on his return from San Domingo is an illustration; and so also was
his answer to the committee of colored fellow-citizens seeking his
countenance for the pending measure of Civil Rights. Some thought him
indifferent; others found him insulting. Then came his recent letter to
the great meeting at Washington, May 9, 1872, called to assert these
rights, where he could say nothing more than this: “I beg to assure
you, however, that I sympathize most cordially in any effort to secure
for all our people, of whatever race, nativity, or color, _the exercise
of those rights to which every citizen should be entitled_.”[171] Of
course everybody is in favor of “the rights to which every citizen
should be entitled.” But what are these rights? And this meaningless
juggle of words, entirely worthy of the days of Slavery, is all that
is vouchsafed by a Republican President for the equal rights of his
colored fellow-citizens.

I dismiss the apologies with the conclusion, that in the matters to
which they invite attention his Presidency is an enormous failure.

THE PRESIDENT AS CANDIDATE.

Looking at his daily life as it becomes known through the press
or conversation, his chief employment seems the dispensation of
patronage, unless society is an employment. For this he is visited
daily by Senators and Representatives bringing distant constituents.
The Executive Mansion has become that famous “Treasury trough”
described so well by an early Congressional orator:--

“Such running, such jostling, such wriggling, such clambering over
one another’s backs, such squealing, because the tub is so narrow
and the company is so crowded.”[172]

To sit behind is the Presidential occupation, watching and feeding the
animals. If this were an amusement only, it might be pardoned; but it
must be seen in a more serious light. Some nations are governed by
the sword,--in other words, by central force commanding obedience.
Our President governs by offices,--in other words, by the appointing
power, being a central force by which he coerces obedience to his
personal will. Let a Senator or Representative hesitate in the support
of his autocracy, or doubt if he merits a second term, and forthwith
some distant consul or postmaster, appointed by his influence, begins
to tremble. The “Head Centre” makes himself felt to the most distant
circumference. Can such tyranny, where the military spirit of our
President finds a congenial field, be permitted to endure?

In adopting him as a candidate for reëlection we undertake to vindicate
his Presidency, and adopt in all things the insulting, incapable,
aide-de-campish dictatorship which he has inaugurated. Presenting his
name, we vouch for his fitness, not only in original nature, but in
experience of civil life, in aptitude for civil duties, in knowledge
of republican institutions, and elevation of purpose; and we must
be ready to defend openly what he has openly done. Can Republicans
honestly do this thing? Let it be said that he is not only the greatest
nepotist among Presidents, but greater than all others together, and
what Republican can reply? Let it be said that he is not only the
greatest gift-taker among Presidents, but the only one who repaid his
patrons at the public expense, and what Republican can reply? Let it
be said that he has openly violated the Constitution and International
Law, in the prosecution of a wretched contrivance against the peace
of San Domingo, and what Republican can reply? Let it be said, that,
wielding the power of the Great Republic, he has insulted the Black
Republic with a menace of war, involving indignity to the African
Race, and what Republican can reply? Let it be said that he has set
up Presidential pretensions without number, constituting an undoubted
Cæsarism or personal government, and what Republican can reply? And let
it be added, that, unconscious of all this misrule, he quarrels without
cause even with political supporters, and on such a scale as to become
the greatest Presidential quarreller of our history, quarrelling more
than all other Presidents together, and what Republican can reply? It
will not be enough to say that he was triumphant in war,--as Scipio,
the victor of Hannibal, reminded the Roman people that on this day
he conquered at Zama.[173] Others have been triumphant in war and
failed in civil life,--as Marlborough, whose heroic victories seemed
unaccountable, in the frivolity, the ignorance, and the heartlessness
of his pretended statesmanship. To Washington was awarded that rarest
tribute, “First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his
countrymen.”[174] Of our President it will be said willingly, “first in
war,” but the candid historian will add, “first in nepotism, first in
gift-taking and repaying by official patronage, first in Presidential
pretensions, and first in quarrel with his countrymen.”

Anxiously, earnestly, the country asks for reform, and stands tiptoe
to greet the coming. But how expect reform from a President who needs
it so much himself? Who shall reform the reformer? So also does the
country ask for purity. But is it not vain to seek this boon from one
whose Presidential pretensions are so demoralizing? Who shall purify
the purifier? The country asks for reform in the civil service. But how
expect any such change from one who will not allow the Presidential
office to be secured against its worst temptation? The country desires
an example for the youth of the land, where intelligence shall blend
with character, and both be elevated by a constant sense of duty with
unselfish devotion to the public weal. But how accord this place to
a President who makes his great office a plaything and perquisite,
while his highest industry is in quarrelling? Since Sancho Panza at
Barataria, no Governor has provided so well for his relations at the
expense of his country; and if any other has made Cabinet appointments
the return for personal favors, his name has dropped out of history.
A man is known by his acts; so also by the company he keeps. And is
not our President known by his intimacy with those who are by-words of
distrust? But all these by-words look to another term for perpetuation
of their power. Therefore, for the sake of reform and purity, which are
a longing of the people, and also that the Chief Magistrate may be an
example, we must seek a remedy.

See for one moment how pernicious must be the Presidential example.
First in place, his personal influence is far-reaching beyond that of
any other citizen. What he does others will do. What he fails to do
others will fail to do. His standard of conduct will be accepted at
least by his political supporters. His measure of industry and his
sense of duty will be the pattern for the country. If he appoints
relations to office and repays gifts by official patronage, making
his Presidency a great “gift-enterprise,” may not every office-holder
do likewise, each in his sphere, so that nepotism and gift-taking
with official remuneration will be general, and gift-enterprises be
multiplied indefinitely in the public service? If he treats his trust
as plaything and perquisite, why may not every office-holder do the
same? If he disregards Constitution and Law in the pursuit of personal
objects, how can we expect a just subordination from others? If he sets
up pretensions without number repugnant to republican institutions,
must not the good cause suffer? If he is stubborn, obstinate, and
perverse, are not stubbornness, obstinacy, and perversity commended
for imitation? If he insults and wrongs associates in official trust,
who is safe from the malignant influence having its propulsion from
the Executive Mansion? If he fraternizes with jobbers and Hessians,
where is the limit to the demoralization that must ensue? Necessarily
the public service takes its character from its elected chief, and the
whole country reflects the President. His example is a law. But a bad
example must be corrected as a bad law.

To the Republican Party, devoted to ideas and principles, I turn
now with more than ordinary solicitude. Not willingly can I see it
sacrificed. Not without earnest effort against the betrayal can I
suffer its ideas and principles to be lost in the personal pretensions
of one man. Both the old parties are in a crisis, with this difference
between the two: the Democracy is dissolving, the Republican party is
being absorbed; the Democracy is falling apart, thus visibly losing
its vital unity,--the Republican Party is submitting to a personal
influence, thus visibly losing its vital character; the Democracy is
ceasing to exist, the Republican Party is losing its identity. Let the
process be completed, and it will be no longer that Republican Party
which I helped to found and have always served, but only a personal
party,--while instead of those ideas and principles which we have been
so proud to uphold will be Presidential pretensions, and instead of
Republicanism there will be nothing but Grantism.

Political parties are losing their sway. Higher than party are country
and the duty to save it from Cæsar. The Caucus is at last understood
as a political engine moved by wire-pullers, and it becomes more
insupportable in proportion as directed to personal ends. Nor is
its character changed when called a National Convention. Here, too,
are wire-pullers; and when the great Office-Holder and the great
Office-Seeker are one and the same, it is easy to see how naturally
the engine responds to the central touch. A political convention is
an agency and convenience, but never a law, least of all a despotism;
and when it seeks to impose a candidate whose name is a synonym of
pretensions unrepublican in character and hostile to good government,
it will be for earnest Republicans to consider well how clearly
party is subordinate to country. Such a nomination can have no just
obligation. Therefore with unspeakable interest will the country watch
the National Convention at Philadelphia. It may be an assembly (and
such is my hope) where ideas and principles are above all personal
pretensions, and the unity of the party is symbolized in the candidate;
or it may add another to Presidential rings, being an expansion of the
military ring at the Executive Mansion, the senatorial ring in this
Chamber, and the political ring in the custom-houses of New York and
New Orleans. A National Convention which is a Presidential ring cannot
represent the Republican Party.

Much rather would I see the party to which I am dedicated, under the
image of a life-boat not to be sunk by wind or wave. How often have I
said this to cheer my comrades! I do not fear the Democratic Party.
Nothing from them can harm our life-boat. But I do fear a quarrelsome
pilot, unused to the sea, but pretentious in command, who occupies
himself in loading aboard his own unserviceable relations and personal
patrons, while he drives away the experienced seamen who know the craft
and her voyage. Here is a peril which no life-boat can stand.

Meanwhile I wait the determination of the National Convention, where
are delegates from my own much-honored Commonwealth with whom I rejoice
to act. Not without anxiety do I wait, but with the earnest hope that
the Convention will bring the Republican Party into ancient harmony,
saving it especially from the suicidal folly of an issue on the
personal pretensions of one man.

INTEREST AND DUTY OF COLORED CITIZENS IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

LETTER TO COLORED CITIZENS, JULY 29, 1872.

I will say to the North, Give up; and to the South, Keep not
back.--ISAIAH, xliii. 6.

* * * * *

The immediate occasion of the present Letter appears in the
following, from colored citizens of Washington to Mr. Sumner:--

WASHINGTON, D. C., July 11, 1872.

SIR,--We, the undersigned, citizens of color, regarding you
as the purest and best friend of our race, admiring your
consistent course in the United States Senate and elsewhere
as the special advocate of our rights, and believing that
your counsel at this critical juncture in the period of our
citizenship would be free from personal feeling and partisan
prejudice, have ventured to request your opinion as to what
action the colored voters of the nation should take in the
Presidential contest now pending.

The choice of our people is now narrowed down to General Grant
or Horace Greeley. Your long acquaintance with both and your
observation have enabled you to arrive at a correct conclusion
as to which of the candidates, judging from their antecedents
as well as their present position, will, if elected, enforce
the requirements of the Constitution and the laws respecting
our civil and political rights with the most heart-felt
sympathy and the greatest vigor.

We hope and trust you will favor us with such reply as will
serve to enlighten our minds upon this subject and impel our
people to go forward in the right direction. Our confidence in
your judgment is so firm, that, in our opinion, thousands of
the intelligent colored voters of the country will be guided in
their action by your statement and advice.

Hoping to receive a reply soon, we have the honor to be,

With great respect,

Your obedient servants,

A. T. AUGUSTA, M. D. SAMUEL PROCTOR.
DAVID FISHER, sr. J. J. KETCHUM.
JNO. H. SMITH. CHAS. N. THOMAS.
EDWARD CRUSOR. WM. H. SHORTER.
WM. H. A. WORMLEY. HENRY HILL.
WILLIAM P. WILSON. FURMAN J. SHADD.
R. W. TOMPKINS. GEO. D. JOHNSON.
JOHN H. BROWN. CHRIS. A. FLEETWOOD.
HENRY LACY. CHAS. F. BRUCE.
W. H. BELL. DAVID FISHER, jr.
J. L. N. BOWEN. DAVID KING.
JACOB DE WITTER. WM. POLKENY.

HON. CHARLES SUMNER.

LETTER.

WASHINGTON, July 29, 1872.

GENTLEMEN AND FELLOW-CITIZENS:--

If I have delayed answering your communication of July 11th, which
was duly placed in my hands by your committee, it was not because
the proper course for you seemed doubtful, but because I wished to
reflect upon it and be aided by information which time might supply.
Since then I have carefully considered the inquiries addressed to me,
and have listened to much on both sides; but my best judgment now is
in harmony with my early conclusion.

I am touched by the appeal you make. It is true that I am the friend
of your race, and I am glad to be assured that in your opinion I have
held a consistent course in the Senate and elsewhere as the special
advocate of your rights. That course, by the blessing of God, I mean
to hold so long as life lasts. I know your infinite wrongs, and feel
for them as my own. You only do me simple justice, when you add a
belief that my counsel at this critical juncture of your citizenship
“would be free from personal feelings and partisan prejudice.” In
answering your inquiries I can have no sentiment except for your
good, which I most anxiously seek; nor can any disturbing influence
be allowed to interfere. The occasion is too solemn. Especially is
there no room for personal feeling or for partisan prejudice. No man
or party can expect power except for the general welfare. Therefore
they must be brought to the standard of truth, which is without
feeling or prejudice.

QUESTIONS PROPOSED.

You are right in saying that the choice for the Presidency is
now “narrowed down” to President Grant or Horace Greeley. One of
these is to be taken, and, assuming my acquaintance with both and
my observation of their lives, you invite my judgment between
them, asking me especially which of the two, “_judging from their
antecedents as well as present position_,” would enforce the
Constitution and laws securing your civil and political rights “with
_the most heart-felt sympathy and the greatest vigor_.” Here I remark
that in this inquiry you naturally put your rights in the foreground.
So do I,--believing most sincerely that the best interests of the
whole country are associated with the completest recognition of
your rights, so that the two races shall live together in unbroken
harmony. I also remark that you call attention to two things,--the
“antecedents” of the candidates, and their “present position.” You
wish to know from these which gives assurance of the most heart-felt
sympathy and greatest vigor in the maintenance of your rights,--in
other words, which, judging by the past, will be your truest friend.

The communication with which you have honored me is not alone.
Colored fellow-citizens in other parts of the country, I may say in
nearly every State of the Union, have made a similar request, and
some complain that I have thus far kept silent. I am not insensible
to the trust reposed in me. But if my opinion is given, it must be
candidly, according to my conscience. In this spirit I answer your
inquiries, beginning with the antecedents of the two candidates.

ANTECEDENTS OF THE CANDIDATES.

Horace Greeley was born to poverty and educated himself in a
printing-office. President Grant, fortunate in early patronage,
became a cadet at West Point and was educated at the public expense.
One started with nothing but industry and character; the other
started with a military commission. One was trained as a civilian;
the other as a soldier. Horace Greeley stood forth as a Reformer and
Abolitionist. President Grant enlisted as a Proslavery Democrat,
and, at the election of James Buchanan, fortified by his vote all
the pretensions of Slavery, including the Dred Scott decision.
Horace Greeley from early life was earnest and constant against
Slavery, full of sympathy with the colored race, and always foremost
in the great battle for their rights. President Grant, except as a
soldier summoned by the terrible accident of war, never did anything
against Slavery, nor has he at any time shown any sympathy with
the colored race, but rather indifference, if not aversion. Horace
Greeley earnestly desired that colored citizens should vote, and ably
championed impartial suffrage; but President Grant was on the other
side.

Beyond these contrasts, which are marked, it cannot be forgotten that
Horace Greeley is a person of large heart and large understanding,
trained to the support of Human Rights, always beneficent to
the poor, always ready for any good cause, and never deterred by
opposition or reproach, as when for long years he befriended your
people. Add to these qualities, conspicuous in his life, untiring
industry which leaves no moment without its fruit, abundant political
knowledge, acquaintance with history, the instinct and grasp of
statesmanship, an amiable nature, a magnanimous soul, and above all
an honesty which no suspicion has touched,--and you have a brief
portraiture where are antecedents of Horace Greeley.

Few of these things appear in the President. His great success in
war, and the honors he has won, cannot change the record of his
conduct toward your people, especially in contrast with the life-time
fidelity of his competitor, while there are unhappy “antecedents”
showing that in the prosecution of his plans he cares nothing for the
colored race. The story is painful; but it must be told.

GRANT’S INDIGNITY TO THE COLORED RACE.

I refer to the outrage he perpetrated upon Hayti, with its six
hundred thousand blacks engaged in the great experiment of
self-government. Here is a most instructive “antecedent,” revealing
beyond question his true nature, and the whole is attested by
documentary evidence. Conceiving the idea of annexing Dominica, which
is the Spanish part of the island, and shrinking at nothing, he began
by seizing the war powers of the Government, in flagrant violation
of the Constitution, and then, at great expenditure of money, sent
several armed ships of the Navy, including monitors, to maintain the
usurper Baez in power, that through him he might obtain the coveted
prize. Not content with this audacious dictatorship, he proceeded to
strike at the independence of the Black Republic by open menace of
war, and all without the sanction of Congress, to which is committed
the power to make war. Sailing into the harbor of Port-au-Prince with
our most powerful monitor, the Dictator, (properly named for this
service,) also the frigate Severn as consort, and other monitors in
their train, the Admiral, acting under instructions from Washington,
proceeded to the Executive Mansion accompanied by officers of his
squadron, and then, pointing to the great war-ships in sight from
the windows, dealt his unjust menace, threatening to sink or capture
Haytian ships. The President was black, not white. The Admiral would
have done no such thing to any white ruler, nor would our country
have tolerated such menace from any Government in the world. Here was
indignity not only to the Black Republic with its population of six
hundred thousand, but to the African race everywhere, and especially
in our own country. Nor did it end here. For months the Navy of the
United States was kept hovering on the coast, holding that insulted
people in constant dread and anxiety, while President Grant was to
them like a hawk sailing in the air, ready to swoop upon his prey.

FALSE IMPRISONMENT OF AN AMERICAN CITIZEN.

This heartless, cruel proceeding found a victim among our white
fellow-citizens. An excellent merchant of Connecticut, praised by all
who know him, was plunged into prison by Baez, where he was immured
because it was feared that on his return to New York he would expose
the frauds of the plotters; and this captivity was prolonged with the
connivance of two agents of the President, one of whom finds constant
favor with him and is part of the military ring immediately about
him. That such an outrage could go unpunished shows the little regard
of the President for human rights, whether in white or black.

HARD TO BEAR THESE OUTRAGES.

I confess my trials, as I was called to witness these things.
Always a supporter of the Administration, and sincerely desiring
to labor with it, I had never uttered a word with regard to it
except in kindness. My early opposition to the Treaty of Annexion
was reserved, so that for some time my opinions were unknown. It
was only when I saw the breach of all law, human and divine, that I
was aroused; and then began the anger of the President and of his
rings, military and senatorial. Devoted to the African race, I felt
for them,--besides being humbled that the Great Republic, acting
through its President, could set such an example, where the National
Constitution, International Law, and Humanity were all sacrificed.
Especially was I moved when I saw the indignity to the colored race,
which was accomplished by trampling upon a fundamental principle
of International Law, declaring the equality of nations, as our
Declaration of Independence declares the equality of men.

This terrible transaction, which nobody can defend, is among the
“antecedents” of President Grant, from which you can judge how much
the colored race can rely upon his “heart-felt sympathy.” Nor can it
be forgotten that shortly afterward, on the return of the Commission
from this island, Hon. Frederick Douglass, the colored orator,
accomplished in manners as in eloquence, was thrust away from the
company of the Commissioners at the common table of the mail-packet
on the Potomac, almost within sight of the Executive Mansion, simply
on account of his color; but the President, at whose invitation he
had joined the Commission, never uttered a word in condemnation of
this exclusion, and when entertaining the returned Commissioners at
dinner carefully omitted Mr. Douglass, who was in Washington at the
time, and thus repeated the indignity.

OTHER ANTECEDENTS.

Other things might be mentioned, showing the sympathies of the
President; but I cannot forget the Civil Rights Bill, which is the
cap-stone of that Equality before the Law to which all are entitled
without distinction of color. President Grant, who could lobby so
assiduously for his San Domingo scheme, full of wrong to the colored
race, could do nothing for this beneficent measure. During a long
session of Congress it was discussed constantly, and the colored
people everywhere hung upon the debate; but there was no word of
“heart-felt sympathy” from the President. At last, just before the
Nominating Convention, he addressed a letter to a meeting of colored
fellow-citizens in Washington, called to advance this cause, where he
avoided the question by declaring himself in favor of “the exercise
of those rights to which every citizen should be entitled,”[175]
leaving it uncertain whether colored people are justly entitled to
the rights secured by the pending bill. I understand that Horace
Greeley has been already assailed by an impracticable Democrat as
friendly to this bill; but nobody has lisped against President Grant
on this account.

Among “antecedents” I deem it my duty to mention the little capacity
or industry of the President in protecting colored people and in
assuring peace at the South. Nobody can doubt that a small portion
of the effort and earnest will, even without the lobbying, so freely
given to the San Domingo scheme, would have averted those Ku-Klux
outrages which we deplore,--thus superseding all pretence for further
legislation by Congress. But he is disabled both by character and
the drawback of his own conduct. After violating the Constitution
and International Law to insult the Black Republic, and setting
an example of insubordination, he is not in condition to rebuke
law-breakers.

PRESENT POSITION OF CANDIDATES.

Passing from “antecedents,” I come now to the “present position”
of the two candidates, which is the subject of your next inquiry.
If in any formal particulars the two are on equality, yet in all
substantial respects the obvious advantage is with Horace Greeley.

NOMINATIONS OF THE TWO CANDIDATES.

Each was nominated by a Republican Convention, one at Cincinnati
and the other at Philadelphia; so that in this respect they may
seem to be on equality. But it will not fail to be observed that
the Convention at Cincinnati was composed of able and acknowledged
Republicans, many having acted with the party from its first
formation, who, without previous organization, came together
voluntarily for the sake of Reform and Purity in the Government;
while, on the other hand, the Convention at Philadelphia was composed
of delegates chosen largely under the influence of office-holders,
who assembled to sustain what is known as Grantism, being the
personal government and personal pretensions of President Grant,
involving nepotism, repayment of gifts by official patronage, neglect
of public duty, absenteeism, quarrelling, military rule, disregard
of Constitution and Law, with general unfitness, and indignity to
the colored race,--all of which is so unrepublican as to make its
support impossible for true Republicans. Therefore the Convention at
Philadelphia, though calling itself Republican, was less Republican
in reality than that at Cincinnati.

THE TWO PLATFORMS.

The two platforms, so far as concerns especially the colored race,
are alike in substance; but that of Cincinnati is expressed in terms
more worthy of the equal rights it states and claims: “We recognize
the equality of all men before the law, and hold that it is the duty
of Government, in its dealings with the people, to mete out equal
and exact justice to all, of whatever nativity, race, color, or
persuasion, religious or political.” In other respects the platform
of Cincinnati is the more republican, inasmuch as it sets itself
against those unrepublican abuses which have been nursed by the
President into pernicious activity.

SUPPORTERS OF THE TWO CANDIDATES.

From the two nominations and two platforms I come to the supporters
of the candidates; and here I look, first, at those immediately about
them, and, secondly, at the popular support behind.

Horace Greeley has among his immediate supporters, in all parts of
the country, devoted and consistent Republicans, always earnest for
Reform and Purity in Government, on whose lives there is no shadow
of suspicion,--being a contrast in character to those rings which
play such a part in the present Administration. The country knows too
well the Military Ring, the Senatorial Ring, and the Custom-House
Ring, through which the President acts. Such supporters are a poor
recommendation.

DEMOCRATS TURNING REPUBLICANS.

Looking at the popular support behind, the advantage is still with
Horace Greeley. President Grant has at his back the diversified army
of office-holders, drilled to obey the word of command. The speeches
praising him are by office-holders and members of rings. Horace
Greeley finds flocking to his cause large numbers of Republicans
unwilling to continue the existing misrule, and as allies with them
a regenerated party springing forward to unite in this liberal
movement. Democrats, in joining Horace Greeley, have changed simply
as President Grant changed when he joined the Republicans,--except
that he was rewarded at once with high office. The change is open.
Adopting the Republican platform, which places the Equal Rights of
All under the safeguard of irreversible guaranties, and at the
same time accepting the nomination of a life-time Abolitionist, who
represents preëminently the sentiment of duty to the colored race,
they have set their corporate seal to the sacred covenant. They may
continue Democrats in name, but they are in reality Republicans,
by the same title that those who sustain Republican principles are
Republicans,--or rather they are Democrats, according to the original
signification of that word, dedicated to the rights of the people.

It is idle to say that Horace Greeley and the Republicans who
nominated him are any less Republican because Democrats unite with
them in support of cherished principles and the candidate who
represents them. Conversions are always welcome, and not less so
because the change is in a multitude rather than an individual. A
political party cannot, if it would, and should not, if it could,
shut the door against converts, whether counted by the score, the
hundred, or the thousand; and so we find that the supporters of
President Grant announce with partisan triumph the adhesion of a
single Democratic politician or a single Democratic newspaper. On
equal reason and with higher pride may the supporters of Horace
Greeley announce the adhesion of the Democratic party, which, turning
from the things that are behind, presses on to those that are before.

GREELEY’S ELECTION THE TRIUMPH OF REPUBLICAN PRINCIPLES.

It is also idle to say that the election of Horace Greeley as
President, with Gratz Brown as Vice-President, both unchangeable
Republicans, will be the return of the Democratic party to power. On
the contrary, it will be the inauguration of Republican principles,
under the safeguard of a Republican President and Republican
Vice-President, with Democrats as avowed supporters. In the
organization of his Administration, and in the conduct of affairs,
Horace Greeley will naturally lean upon those who represent best the
great promises of Equal Rights and Reconciliation made at Cincinnati.
If Democrats are taken, it will be as Republicans in heart,
recognizing the associate terms of the settlement as an immutable
finality.

The hardihood of political falsehood reaches its extreme point,
when it is asserted that under Horace Greeley the freedmen will be
reënslaved, or that colored people will in any way suffer in their
equal rights. On the contrary, they have in his election not only the
promises of the platform, but also his splendid example for a full
generation, during which he has never wavered in the assertion of
their rights. To suppose that Horace Greeley, when placed where he
can do them the most good, will depart from the rule of his honest
life is an insult to reason.

It is none the less idle to suppose that Democrats supporting
Horace Greeley expect or desire that he should depart from those
principles which are the glory of his character. They have accepted
the Cincinnati platform with its twofold promises, and intend in
good faith to maintain it. Democrats cannot turn back, who at the
Convention adopting this platform sang Greeley songs to the tune of
“Old John Brown, his soul is marching on.” Seeking especially the
establishment of character in the National Government, they will
expect their President to be always true to himself.

Therefore I put aside the partisan allegations, that Horace Greeley
has gone to the Democrats, or that he will be controlled by
Democrats. Each is without foundation or reason, according to my
judgment. They are attempts to avoid what you recognize as the true
issue, being the question between the two candidates; or perhaps
they may be considered as scarecrows to deter the timid. Nobody who
votes for Horace Greeley will go to the Democrats; nor do I believe,
that, when elected, Horace Greeley will be under any influence except
that enlightened conscience which will keep him ever true to the
principles he represents.

The conclusion from this comparison between the two candidates is
plain. Unquestionably the surest trust of the colored people is in
Horace Greeley. In everything for your protection and advancement he
will show always the most heart-felt sympathy and the greatest vigor
beyond what can be expected from President Grant. He is your truest
friend.

VOTE FOR GREELEY.

Gentlemen, in thus answering your two inquiries, I have shown why
you, as colored fellow-citizens, and also all who would uphold your
rights and save the colored race from indignity, should refuse to
sanction the reëlection of the President, and should put trust in
Horace Greeley. I ought to add, that with him will be associated
as Vice-President Gratz Brown, whom I have known for years as a
most determined Abolitionist. The two together will carry into the
National Government an unswerving devotion to your rights, not to be
disturbed by partisan dictation or sectional prejudice.

Besides all this, which may fitly guide you in determining between
the two candidates, it is my duty to remind you, that, as citizens
of the United States, and of part of the country, your welfare is
indissolubly associated with that of the whole country. Where all are
prosperous you will be gainers. Therefore, while justly careful of
your own rights, you cannot be indifferent to the blessings of good
government. It is for you to consider whether the time has not come
for something better than the sword, and whether a character like
Horace Greeley does not give stronger assurance of good government
than can be found in the insulter of the colored race, already famous
for the rings about him and his plain inaptitude for civil life.
The supporters of President Grant compel us to observe his offences
and shortcomings, and thus the painful contrast with Horace Greeley
becomes manifest. It will be for others in the present canvass to
hold it before the American people.

TOO MUCH OF A REPUBLICAN TO VOTE FOR GRANT.

Speaking now for myself, I have to say that my vote will be given
for Horace Greeley; but in giving it I do not go to the Democratic
party, nor am I any less a Republican. On the contrary, I am so much
of a Republican that I cannot support a candidate whose conduct in
civil life shows an incapacity to appreciate Republican principles,
and whose Administration is marked by acts of delinquency, especially
toward the colored race, by the side of which the allegations on
the impeachment of Andrew Johnson were technical and trivial.
Unquestionably President Grant deserved impeachment for high crimes
and misdemeanors, rather than a renomination; and on the trial it
would have been enough to exhibit his seizure of the war powers,
and his indignity to the Black Republic with its population of six
hundred thousand, in violation of the National Constitution and of
International Law. And here a contrast arises between him and Abraham
Lincoln. The latter in his first Annual Message recommended the
recognition of what he called “the independence and sovereignty of
Hayti”; but it is at these that President Grant has struck. One of
Abraham Lincoln’s earliest acts was to put the Black Republic on an
equality with other powers; one of President Grant’s earliest acts
was to degrade it.

I am so much of a Republican that I wish to see in the Presidential
chair a life-time Abolitionist. I also wish a President sincerely
devoted to Civil-Service Reform, beginning with the “One-Term
Principle,” which President Grant once accepted, but now disowns. I
also wish a President who sets the example of industry and unselfish
dedication to the public good. And I wish to see a President through
whom we may expect peace and harmony, instead of discord. Strangely,
President Grant seems to delight in strife. If he finds no enemy, he
falls upon his friends,--as when he struck at the Black Republic,
insulted Russia in his last Annual Message, offended both France and
Germany, and then, in personal relations, quarrelled generally.

PRINCIPLES ABOVE PARTY.

My own personal experience teaches how futile is the charge, that,
because Horace Greeley receives Democratic votes, therefore he
becomes a Democrat, or lapses under Democratic control. I was first
chosen to the Senate by a coalition of Free-Soilers and Democrats.
Democratic votes helped make me Senator from Massachusetts,--as they
also helped make my excellent friend Mr. Chase Senator from Ohio,
and will help make Horace Greeley President. But neither Mr. Chase
nor myself was on this account less faithful as a Free-Soiler,--and,
answering for myself, I know that I never became a Democrat or
lapsed under Democratic control. I do not doubt that Horace
Greeley will be equally consistent. The charge to the contrary, so
vehemently repeated, seems to reflect the character of those who make
it,--except that many repeat it by rote.

There is a common saying, “Principles, not Men”; and on this ground
an appeal is made for President Grant, it being justly felt that
in any personal comparison with Horace Greeley he must fail. But a
better saying is, “Principles _and_ Men.” I am for the principles of
the Republican Party in contradiction to Grantism, and I am for the
man who truly represents them. By these principles I shall stand,
for them I shall labor, and in their triumph I shall always rejoice.
If any valued friend separates from me now, it will be because he
_places a man above principles_. Early in public life I declared my
little heed for party, and my indifference to the name by which I was
called; and now I confess my want of sympathy with those who would
cling to the form after its spirit has fled.

GREELEY’S NOMINATION A RESPONSE TO LONGING FOR PEACE.

This answer would be incomplete, if I did not call attention to
another and controlling consideration, which cannot be neglected
by the good citizen. Watching the remarkable movement that has
ended in the double nomination of Horace Greeley, it is easy to see
that it did not proceed from politicians, whether at Cincinnati or
Baltimore. Evidently it was the heart of the people, sorely wrung by
war and the controversies it engendered, which found this expression.
Sir Philip Sidney said of the uprising in the Netherlands, “It is
the spirit of the Lord, and is irresistible”; and such a spirit is
manifest now. I would not use the word lightly, but to my mind it
is Providential. Notwithstanding the counteracting influence of
politicians, Republican and Democratic, in the face of persistent
ridicule, and against the extravagance of unscrupulous opposition,
the nomination at Cincinnati was triumphantly adopted at Baltimore.
Such an unprecedented victory, without concert or propulsion of
any kind, can be explained only by supposing that it is in harmony
with a popular longing. That Democrats, and especially those of the
South, should adopt a life-time Abolitionist for President is an
assurance of willingness to associate the rights of their colored
fellow-citizens with that Reconciliation of which Horace Greeley was
an early representative. In standing by Jefferson Davis at his trial
and signing his bail-bond, he showed the same sentiment of humanity
he so constantly displayed in standing by the colored race throughout
their prolonged trial; so that the two discordant races find kindred
hospitality in him, and he thus becomes a tie of union. In harmony
with this interesting circumstance is the assurance in his letter of
acceptance, that, if elected, he will be “the President, not of a
party, but of the whole people.”

RECONCILIATION.

The nomination has been adopted by the Democrats in convention
assembled. This was an event which the supporters of President Grant
declared impossible. I do not see how it can be regarded otherwise
than as a peace-offering. As such it is of infinite value. The Past
is rejected, and a new Future is begun with the promise of concord.
Here is no ordinary incident. It is a Revolution, and its success
in pacifying the country will be in proportion to its acceptance
by us. I dare not neglect the great opportunity, nor can I stand
aloof. It is in harmony with my life, which places Peace above all
things except the Rights of Man. Thus far, in constant efforts for
the colored race, I have sincerely sought the good of all, which I
was sure would be best obtained in fulfilling the promises of the
Declaration of Independence, making all equal in rights. The spirit
in which I acted appears in an early speech, where I said: “Nothing
in hate; nothing in vengeance.”[176] My object was security for Human
Rights. Most anxiously I have looked for the time, which seems now at
hand, when there should be reconciliation, not only between the North
and South, but between the two races, so that the two sections and
the two races may be lifted from the ruts and grooves in which they
are now fastened, and, instead of _irritating antagonism_ without
end, there shall be _sympathetic coöperation_.

The existing differences ought to be ended. There is a time for all
things, and we are admonished by a wide-spread popular uprising,
bursting the bonds of party, that the time has come for estrangement
to cease between people who by the ordinance of God must live
together. Gladly do I welcome the happy signs; nor can I observe
without regret the colored people in organized masses resisting the
friendly overtures, even to the extent of intimidating those who are
the other way. It is for them to consider carefully whether they
should not take advantage of the unexpected opening, and recognize
the “bail-bond” given at Baltimore as the assurance of peace, and
unite with me in holding the parties to the full performance of its
conditions. Provided always that their rights are fixed, I am sure it
cannot be best for the colored people to band together in a hostile
camp, provoking antagonism and keeping alive the separation of races.
Above all, there must be no intimidation; but every voter must act
freely, without constraint from league or lodge. Much better will
it be when the two political parties compete for your votes, each
anxious for your support. Only then will that citizenship by which
you are entitled to the equal rights of all have its natural fruits.
Only then will there be that harmony which is essential to a true
civilization.

The present position of the colored citizen is perilous. He is
exposed to injurious pressure where he needs support. But I see no
early extrication except in the way now proposed. Let him cut adrift
from managers who would wield him merely as a political force, with
little regard to his own good, and bravely stand by the candidate
who has stood by him. If Democrats unite with him, so much the
better. The association, once begun, must naturally ripen in common
friendship and trust.

I am for peace in reality as in name. From the bottom of my heart I
am for peace, and I welcome all that makes for peace. With deep-felt
satisfaction I remember that no citizen who drew his sword against
us has suffered by the hand of the executioner. In just association
with this humanity will be the triumph of Equal Rights, when the
promises of the great Declaration are all fulfilled, and our people
are united, as never before, in the enduring fellowship of a common
citizenship. To this end there must be Reconciliation. Nor can I
withhold my hand. Freely I accept the hand that is offered, and reach
forth my own in friendly grasp. I am against the policy of hate; I
am against fanning ancient flames into continued life; I am against
raking the ashes of the Past for coals of fire yet burning. Pile up
the ashes; extinguish the flames; abolish the hate!

And now, turning to the Democratic party, I hold it to all the
covenants solemnly given in the adoption of a Republican platform
with Horace Greeley as candidate. There can be no backward step.

WATCHWORD FOR THE CANVASS.

With no common sympathy I observe that Mr. Hendricks, a leading
Democrat, whom I knew and esteemed in the Senate, has recently
announced his acceptance of the Constitutional Amendments with their
logical results. He proposes, as a proper key-note to the popular
movement now swelling to a sure triumph, “Just Laws and Public
Virtue.” This is a worthy aspiration, entirely fit for the occasion.
My watchword is, “The Unity of the Republic, and the Equal Rights of
All, with Reconciliation.” Such is my heart-felt cry; and wherever
my voice can reach, there do I insist upon all these, humbly
invoking the blessings of Divine Providence, which, I believe, must
descend upon such a cause.

* * * * *

Accept my best wishes for yourselves personally, and for the people
you represent.

And believe me, Gentlemen,

Your faithful friend,

CHARLES SUMNER.

To Dr. AUGUSTA, WILLIAM H. A. WORMLEY, and others.

LETTER TO SPEAKER BLAINE.

AUGUST 5, 1872.

July 31, 1872, Mr. Blaine addressed a letter to Mr. Sumner
through the newspapers, arraigning him as recreant both to party
and principle, in the position taken by him on the Presidential
question in his recent Letter to Colored Citizens. Mr. Sumner
responded as follows:--

WASHINGTON, August 5, 1872.

DEAR SIR,--I have seen the letter addressed to me by you through the
public prints, and I notice especially, that, while animadverting
upon my support of Horace Greeley, you say not one word in
vindication of that compound of pretensions known as Grantism in
contradistinction to Republicanism, which you would install anew in
the Government.

You are greatly concerned about the company I keep. To quiet your
solicitude, I beg leave to say, that, in joining the Republicans
who brought forward an original Abolitionist, I find myself with so
many others devoted to the cause I have always served that I had not
missed you until you hastened to report absence; nor had I taken
account of the “Southern Secessionists,” who, as you aver, are now
coöperating with me in support of this original Abolitionist, except
to rejoice, that, if among former associates some like yourself
hesitate, their places are supplied from an unexpected quarter.

You entirely misunderstand me when you introduce an incident of
the past, and build on it an argument why I should not support
Horace Greeley. What has Preston Brooks to do with the Presidential
election? Never, while a sufferer, did anybody hear me speak of
him in unkindness; and now, after the lapse of more than half a
generation, I will not unite with you in dragging him from the
grave, where he sleeps, to aggravate the passions of a political
conflict, and arrest the longing for concord. And here is the
essential difference between you and me at this juncture. I seize the
opportunity to make the equal rights of all secure through peace and
reconciliation; but this infinite boon you would postpone.

Seven years have passed since the close of our Civil War; but,
unhappily, during all this period a hostile spirit has continued to
exist between the contending sections, while the rights of colored
fellow-citizens have been in perpetual question. Seven years mark a
natural period of human life. Should not the spirit be changed with
the body? Can we not after seven years begin a new life, especially
when those once our foes repeat the saying, “Thy people shall be my
people, and thy God my God”?

I declare my preference for an original Abolitionist as President,
and you seek to create a diversion by crying out that Democrats will
support him. To which I reply, So much the better. Their support is
the assurance that the cause he has so constantly guarded, whether of
Equal Rights or Reconciliation, is accepted by Democrats; and this is
the pledge of a true union beyond anything in our history. It is a
victory of ideas, without which all other victories must fail.

To intensify your allegation, you insist that I am ranged with
Jefferson Davis and Robert Toombs; but, pardon me, nobody knows how
the former will vote, while Robert Toombs is boisterous against
Horace Greeley, and with him are Stephens, Wise, and Mosby. This is
all very poor, and I mention it only to exhibit the character of your
attempt.

In the same spirit you seek to avoid the real issue by holding
up the possibility of what you call a Democratic Administration;
and you have the courage to assert, as within my knowledge, that
by the election of Horace Greeley “Congress is handed over to the
control of the party who have persistently denied the rights of the
black man.” You say that I know this. Mr. Speaker, I know no such
thing, and you should be sufficiently thoughtful not to assert it.
I am entirely satisfied that a canvass like the present, where the
principles declared at Cincinnati are openly accepted on one side
and not contested on the other, must result in a larger number of
Congressional Representatives sincerely devoted to the rights of the
colored citizen than ever before.

The Democrats will be pledged, as never before, to the ruling
principle that All Men are Equal before the Law, and also to the
three Constitutional Amendments, with the clause in each empowering
Congress to enforce the same by appropriate legislation. But besides
Democrats, there will be Liberal Republicans pledged likewise, and
also your peculiar associates, who, I trust, will not betray the
cause. Senators and Representatives calling themselves Republicans
have been latterly in large majority in both Houses; but the final
measure of Civil Rights, to which you refer, though urged by
me almost daily, has failed to become a law, less, I fear, from
Democratic opposition than from Republican lukewarmness and the want
of support in the President.

The great issue which the people are called to decide in November
is on the President, and nobody knows better than yourself that the
House of Representatives, chosen at the same time, will naturally
harmonize with him. So it has been in our history. Now harmony with
Horace Greeley involves what I most desire. With such a President,
Congress will be changed. For the first time since the war the Equal
Rights of All will have a declared representative at the head of the
Government, whose presence there will be of higher significance than
that of any victor in war, being not only a testimony, but a constant
motive-power in this great cause.

Opposition, whether open hostility or more subtle treachery, will
yield to the steady influence of such a representative. Therefore in
looking to the President I look also to Congress, which will take its
character in large measure from him. In choosing Horace Greeley we do
the best we can for the whole Government,--not only in the Executive,
but in the Legislative branch,--while we decline to support nepotism,
repayment of personal gifts by official patronage, seizure of the
war powers, indignity to the Black Republic,--also, the various
incapacity exhibited by the President, and the rings by which he
governs,--none of which can you defend. You know well that the rings
are already condemned by the American people.

For myself, I say plainly and without hesitation, that I prefer
Horace Greeley, with any Congress possible on the Cincinnati
Platform, to President Grant, _with his personal government and
his rings_,--a vote for whom involves the support of this personal
government, _with prolonged power in all the rings_. There must be
another influence and another example. The Administration, in all its
parts, is impressed by the President. Let his soul be enlarged with
the sentiment of justice, quickened by industry, and not only the two
Houses of Congress, but the whole country, will feel the irresistible
authority, overspreading, pervading, permeating everywhere.
Therefore, in proportion as you are earnest for the rights of the
colored citizen, and place them above all partisan triumph, you will
be glad to support the candidate whose heart has always throbbed for
Humanity. The country needs such a motive-power in the White House;
it needs a generous fountain there. In one word, it needs somebody
different from the present incumbent; and nobody knows this better
than Speaker Blaine.

The personal imputation you make upon me I repel with the indignation
of an honest man. I was a faithful supporter of the President until
somewhat tardily awakened by his painful conduct on the island of
San Domingo, involving seizure of the war power in violation of the
Constitution, and indignity to the Black Republic in violation of
International Law; and when I remonstrated against these intolerable
outrages, I was set upon by those acting in his behalf. Such is the
origin of my opposition. I could not have done less without failure
in that duty which is with me the rule of life. Nor can I doubt
that when partisan sentiments are less active you will regret the
wrong you have done me. Meanwhile I appeal confidently to the candid
judgment of those who, amidst all present differences of opinion,
unite in the great objects, far above Party or President, to which my
life is devoted.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

CHARLES SUMNER.

THE HONORABLE SPEAKER BLAINE.

RETROSPECT AND PROMISE.

ADDRESS AT A SERENADE BEFORE HIS HOUSE IN WASHINGTON, AUGUST 9, 1872.

The serenade was given under the auspices of the colored men of
the District, on the occasion of the Senator’s departure for
Boston,--and the crowd in attendance is reported to have been “one
of the largest ever gathered in Washington for a similar object.”
On presentation by Dr. Augusta as “the tried and true friend of the
African race,” Mr. Sumner said:--

FRIENDS AND FELLOW-CITIZENS:--

I am touched by this voluntary expression of friendship, and beg to
thank you from the heart.

In seeing you on this occasion I think of you only as personal
friends among whom I have lived more than twenty years. During this
considerable period changes have occurred of incalculable importance
to the country, but especially to the colored people. When I entered
upon my public duties here Slavery was in the ascendant, giving the law
to all the usages of life. The colored man was degraded. He was not
allowed to testify in court; he was shut out from the public schools;
he was excluded from the public conveyances, and thrust away from the
ballot-box. But here in the National Capital all these terrible wrongs
have ceased. The court-room, the school-house, the horse-car, and the
ballot-box are all open, never to be closed. Revolutions do not go
backward. Therefore you may rest secure in what has been won. Of this
be sure, Slavery will never be revived, nor will you be restrained or
limited in any of these rights you now enjoy. [_Applause, and three
cheers for Mr. Sumner._]

Most sincerely do I congratulate you on these signal triumphs, so
little to be expected when I first became acquainted with you. And when
we consider the brief period in which they have been accomplished, I am
sure you will unite with me in hope and trust for the future. [_Cries,
“We will!”_]

It is my duty, however, to remind you that the work is not yet
completed. This will be only by the enactment of a Civil Rights
Bill which shall relieve the citizen, whoever he may be, from any
exclusion or discrimination on account of his color. Only then will be
established that Equality before the Law to which now, for the first
time in our history, all political parties are distinctly pledged. Here
there can be no question. [_Applause._] It is in the platforms of all.
Of the early passage of such a law I do not doubt. Then will you have
all the assurance of your rights that can be found in the Constitution
and law. But that law will be the cap-stone. [_Applause._]

I shall not disguise from you that something more will be needed. There
must be a constant, watchful, public opinion behind, to see that these
are enforced in letter and spirit. Here there must be no failure in
awakening and invigorating this public opinion. You can do much,--I
would almost say you can do everything. How constantly have I urged,
in public speech and in all my intercourse with you, that our colored
fellow-citizens must insist upon their rights always, by petition, by
speech, and by vote! Above all, never vote for any man who is not true
to you. Make allegiance to you the measure of your support. [_Cheers._]
So doing, all parties will seek your vote. [_Cheers._] You will be
felt, and your cause will be irresistible.

Please accept these few words as my acknowledgment of your kindness
this evening. [_Cries, “Go on!”_] From long acquaintance you know
something of my sympathies. [_A voice, “I do!”_] Always from the
beginning I have sought to serve you, and always to the end shall I
seek to serve you. To your cause my life is dedicated, and nothing can
turn me from it, nothing can tempt me or drive me from its support.
[_Loud applause._]

FREDERICK DOUGLASS AND PRESIDENT GRANT.

LETTER TO HON. ANDREW D. WHITE, PRESIDENT OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY, AUGUST
10, 1872.

WASHINGTON, August 10, 1872.

MY DEAR SIR,--I am surprised by a statement purporting to proceed
from you, which I find under the telegraphic head, to the effect that
I have misrepresented facts with regard to Frederick Douglass.

In making this allegation you defend the Commissioners to San
Domingo, and allege that Mr. Douglass was well treated by them.
I have never said the contrary, nor have I ever alluded to the
treatment he received from them. Not a word or hint can be found on
the subject in anything written or spoken by me.

My allusion was to the exclusion of Mr. Douglass from the common
table of the mail-packet on the Potomac, almost within sight of the
Executive Mansion, simply on account of color,--and I added, that the
President, on whose invitation he had joined the Commission, never
uttered a word in rebuke of this exclusion, and when entertaining
the returned Commissioners at dinner carefully omitted Mr. Douglass,
who was in Washington at the time, and thus repeated the indignity.
On this you are represented as remarking, that General Sigel was
also omitted, but that, in fact, Mr. Douglass and General Sigel had
already left for their homes (forgetting that Mr. Douglass continued
in Washington); and you do not allow yourself to doubt, that, had
they been in town, they would have been included in the invitation.
Your apology clearly shows your opinion that they ought to have
been invited; but please not to forget that there was a reason for
inviting Mr. Douglass that did not exist in the case of General
Sigel. The General was white, and he had suffered no indignity on
board a mail-packet which it was in the power of the President to
rebuke by example.

But you are mistaken in the facts, as appears by the newspapers of
the time. The Commissioners reached Washington on the evening of
March 27th. They were entertained at dinner by the President March
30th. On the day before the dinner Mr. Douglass presided at the
Convention to nominate a Delegate to Congress from the District of
Columbia, and on taking the chair made a speech. Mr. Chipman was
nominated against Mr. Douglass, who made another speech thanking his
supporters for their votes. To gratify the friends of Mr. Douglass,
there was an understanding that he should succeed Mr. Chipman as
Secretary of the District. These things show that Mr. Douglass was
not only in Washington, but conspicuously so, presiding at a public
Convention, and being voted for as a candidate for Congress.

But we are not left to inference. Mr. A. M. Green, of Washington, who
at the Convention nominated Mr. Douglass for Congress, assures us
that he did not leave town till some days later. Mr. Green further
states, in a note dated August 10th, now before me, that about
this time he and another friend called on Mr. Douglass, in relation
to his appointment by the President as Secretary of the District;
that Mr. Douglass, while thanking them for their earnestness in
his behalf, assured them that he had no hope of success; that he
had “new evidence of the conservative character or tendency of the
Administration, which warranted him in the opinion that we could not
succeed”; and Mr. Green says that Mr. Douglass added these words:
“I was not only neglected without any rebuke for the offence from
the President, but the Commissioners have been invited to dine with
the President, and the same spirit of neglect has been exhibited in
that respect also.” Mr. Green adds, that recently, while on the way
to the National Colored Convention at New Orleans, Mr. Douglass, in
conversation with Mr. Downing and himself, “referred in a complaining
spirit to this circumstance.”

I have also before me a note, dated August 10th, from Mr. Wormley, so
well known for his excellent hotel in Washington, who says that he
asked Mr. Douglass, shortly after his return, if he dined with the
President and the Commissioners, to which he answered, “No, and for
the good reason that I was not invited”; and then he added, “It is
no use to deny it, but I feel it sorely.” This was at Mr. Douglass’s
office. On another occasion, at his son’s house, referring to the
same thing, he said to Mr. Wormley, “I felt it keenly.”

Mr. Gray, recently of the Legislative Council of the District,
nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, now a School
Trustee, assures me that Mr. Douglass spoke to him of his omission
by the President with the same feeling that he exhibited to Mr.
Green and Mr. Wormley. These witnesses are all colored, but even
without the new law nobody would question their testimony. I add my
own acquaintance with the case. At my house, Mr. Douglass, while
speaking not unkindly, said that he felt the President’s neglect in
not inviting him to dine, which was more noticeable, as he had gone
to San Domingo at the express invitation of the President, and on his
return was insulted on board the Potomac mail-packet. He added, that
an invitation from the President would have been a proper rebuke to
those who had insulted him.

I will add, that it is a matter of common notoriety that Mr. Douglass
did not disguise his feelings on account of this Presidential
incident.

Such are the facts and the evidence. I think that you will see, my
dear Sir, that, if there is any misstatement, or, as you express it,
“perversion of facts,” it is not on my part.

Faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

GREELEY OR GRANT?

SPEECH INTENDED TO BE DELIVERED AT FANEUIL HALL, BOSTON, SEPTEMBER 3,
1872.

LIBERAL REPUBLICAN HEAD-QUARTERS, BOSTON,
August 24, 1872.

MY DEAR SIR,--I am directed by the Liberal Republican State
Committee to communicate to you a vote of which the following is a
copy:--

“_Voted_, That the Chairman, in the name of the Liberal
Republican State Committee, invite the Hon. Charles Sumner to
address his constituents on Public Affairs in Faneuil Hall, at
the earliest day that may suit his convenience.”

Allow me to add my earnest personal wishes that you will be able
to comply with the request. “The great soul of the world is just,”
and the sober second thought of the people of Massachusetts will, I
doubt not, sustain you in the position you have taken in favor of
Reform and Reconciliation, and therefore of the election of Greeley
and Brown.

Very faithfully yours,

F. W. BIRD.

HON. CHARLES SUMNER.

BOSTON, August 30, 1872.

DEAR SIR,--I have been honored by your communication of August 24th,
inviting me in the name of the Liberal Republicans of Massachusetts,
to speak in Faneuil Hall. It is with inexpressible pain and regret
that I feel constrained to decline this flattering opportunity.

I had confidently hoped, on returning home, to meet my
fellow-citizens in that venerable forum, so dear to us all, and
to speak once more on great questions involving the welfare of
our country; but recurring symptoms of a painful character warn
me against any such attempt. My physician advises that I must not
for the present make any public effort, and he prescribes rest.
Valued friends, familiar with my condition, unite with the excellent
physician.

In submitting most reluctantly to these admonitions, I cannot
renounce the privilege of communicating with my fellow-citizens, and
therefore hand you a copy of what, with the blessing of health, I
hoped to say. In the House of Representatives undelivered speeches
are sometimes ordered to be printed. You may follow this precedent
with mine, or do with it as you please. Meanwhile accept my best
wishes, and believe me, dear Sir,

Very faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

HON. FRANCIS W. BIRD, Chairman, etc.

SPEECH.

FELLOW-CITIZENS,--It is on the invitation of the State Committee of
Liberal Republicans that I have the honor of addressing you. I shall
speak directly on the issue before us. If I am frank and plain, it will
be only according to my nature and the requirement of duty at this
time. But nothing can I say which is not prompted by a sincere desire
to serve my country, and especially to promote that era of good-will,
when the assent of all shall be assured to the equal rights of all.

THE TWO CANDIDATES.

At the approaching Presidential Election the people are to choose
between two candidates. By the operation of our electoral system,
and the superadded dictation of National Conventions, the choice is
practically limited to President Grant and Horace Greeley; so that no
preference for another can be made effective. One of these must be
taken. Preferring Horace Greeley, I have no hesitation in assigning the
reasons which lead me to this conclusion.

Believing the present incumbent unfit for the great office to which he
aspires for a second time, and not doubting that a vote for him would
be regarded as the sanction of abuses and pretensions unrepublican
in character, I early saw the difficulty of taking any part for his
reëlection. Long ago I declared, that, while recognizing party as an
essential agency and convenience, I could not allow it to constrain
my conscience against what seemed the requirements of public good.
Regarding always substance rather than form, I have been indifferent to
the name by which I might be called. Nor was I impressed by the way in
which the candidate was urged. Supporters, while admitting his failure,
and even the abuses and pretensions so notorious in his civil life,
commended his reëlection as necessary to uphold the party with which
I have been associated. But it is easy to see that a vote for such a
candidate on such a reason was “to do evil that good might come,” which
is forbidden in politics as in morals.

Two courses seemed open. One was to abstain from voting,--and I confess
that this was my first inclination. But it is not easy for me to be
neutral,--certainly where wrong-doing is in question; nor is it my
habit to shrink from responsibility. But the doubt that beset me was
removed when I saw the Democratic Party adopt the candidate opposed
to President Grant, being an original Republican already nominated by
a Republican Convention, and at the same time accept the Republican
platform on which he was nominated. An old party, which had long stood
out against the Republican cause, now placed itself on a Republican
platform, the best ever adopted, with a Republican candidate, who was
the most devoted Republican ever nominated,--thus completely accepting
the results of the war, and offering the hand of reconciliation. At
once the character of the contest changed. This was no common event.
Pardon me, if I say that to me it was of peculiar interest. For years
I have sought to establish in the National Government the great
principles of the Declaration of Independence, avowing always that when
this was done nobody should surpass me in generosity towards former
Rebels. Not only by the logic of my life, but by constant speeches,
was I bound to welcome those who placed themselves on this glorious
platform. The extent of this obligation will appear before I close. And
now its performance harmonizes with opposition to the prolonged misrule
of the present incumbent.

TWO REASONS IN FAVOR OF GREELEY.

Evidently I am not at liberty to abstain from voting. In considering
the reasons in favor of Horace Greeley, I find two, differing in
character, but of chief importance: first, that he represents a
reformed civil service, beginning with the One-Term principle, without
which this reform is too much like a sham; and, secondly, that he
represents reconciliation, not only between the two sections, but
between the two races, which is essential to the repose of the country
and the safeguard of Equal Rights.

To these must be added, that he does not represent those personal
pretensions, so utterly inconsistent with Republican government, which
are now known as Grantism. In voting for Horace Greeley you will not
sustain nepotism, you will not sustain gift-taking and repayment by
official favor, and you will not lend your sanction to the San Domingo
machination, with its unconstitutional usurpations, its violations of
International Law, and its indignity to the Black Republic. Elsewhere
I have considered these fully,[177] and I am not aware of any answer to
the undeniable facts. I shall only glance at them now.

NEPOTISM.

Nepotism is already condemned by history, and most justly; for it is
obviously a form of self-seeking, hostile to purity of government,
and strangely out of place in a Republic. Nothing for self, but
all for country and mankind, should be the rule of our President.
If the promptings of his inner nature fail, then must he feel the
irresistible obligation of his position. As he does, so will others
do; and therefore must his example be such as to elevate the public
service. Nothing in Washington’s career has shone with more constant
light than his refusal to confer office on his relations. Even at the
time, it arrested attention not only at home but abroad, landing praise
in England. Of this there is a striking illustration. The “Register
of the Times,” published at London in 1795, in an article entitled
“Interesting and Authentic Documents respecting the United States of
America,” records its homage:--

“The execution of the office of the Chief Magistrate has been
attended through a term of four years with a circumstance which
to an admiring world requires no commentary. A native citizen of
the United States, transferred from private life to that station,
has not, during so long a term, appointed a single relation to any
office of honor or emolument.”[178]

With such confession an admiring world looked on. Something would I
do--something, I trust, the American people will do at the coming
election--to secure this beautiful praise yet again for our country.

GIFT-TAKING.

Like nepotism, the taking of gifts by a public servant is condemned
by history. No honest nature can uphold it. How well did our late
General Thomas, so admirable in character, rebuke this abuse, when he
replied to an offer of $100,000, as I am told, “Let it go to my men”!
If not a form of bribery, it is kindred in nature,--and this has long
been recognized, from the Bible down to our day. According to the old
scriptures it is destructive: “The king by judgment stablisheth the
land; but he that receiveth gifts overthroweth it.”[179] Here again
is the example of Washington brightly lighting the true republican
pathway. The same President who would not appoint a relation would
not take a gift, even when out of office. His example was in harmony
with the lesson of Colonial days. As long ago as April 20, 1703, Queen
Anne, in a communication to Lord Cornbury, Governor of New York and
New Jersey, laid down the following rule: that neither the Governor,
Lieutenant-Governor, Commander-in-Chief, or President of the Council
“do receive any gift or present from the Assembly _or others_ on
any account or in any manner whatsoever, upon pain of our highest
displeasure, and of being recalled from that our Government.”[180] This
rule is as good for our day as for that in which it was ordained by
royal authority.

There is another instance, which should not be forgotten. It is that
of Lord Wellesley, the accomplished brother of the Duke of Wellington.
A work so common as that of Smiles on “Self-Help” records, that, while
Governor-General of India, he positively refused a present of £100,000
from the Directors of the East India Company on the conquest of Mysore;
and here the terms of his refusal are important:--

“It is not necessary for me to allude to the independence of my
character and the proper dignity attaching to my office; other
reasons besides these important considerations lead me to decline
this testimony, which is not suitable to me. I think of nothing but
our army. I should be much distressed to curtail the share of those
brave soldiers.”[181]

His refusal remained unalterable. At a later period, when nearly
eighty years of age, embarrassed by debts, and entirely withdrawn from
public life, he allowed the Company to vote him a much smaller sum in
consideration of his signal services.[182]

GIFT-MAKERS APPOINTED TO OFFICE.

The allowances voted by Parliament to Marlborough and Wellington on
account of their victories can be no precedent for the acceptance
of gifts from fellow-citizens. The distinction is clear. But the
case against the present incumbent is not only that while holding
high office he accepted gifts from fellow-citizens, but subsequently
appointed the gift-makers to office,--thus using the Presidency to pay
off his own personal obligations. Please bear this in mind; and when
some apologist attempts to defend the taking of gifts, let him know
that he must go still further, and show that the Presidency, with all
its patronage, is a perquisite to be employed for the private advantage
of the incumbent.

SAN DOMINGO.

Next in illustration of the prevailing misrule is the San Domingo
business, with its eccentricities of wrong-doing; and this, too, is
now in issue. At the thought of this unprecedented enormity, where
wrong assumes such various forms, it is hard to be silent; but I shall
be brief. The case is clear, and stands on documents which cannot be
questioned. I keep within the line of moderate statement, when I say,
that, from the beginning of our Government, nothing in our foreign
relations has been so absolutely indefensible. It will not do to call
it simply a fault and an insolence; it was an elaborate contrivance,
conceived in lust of territory, pursued in ignorance, maintained
in open violation of the National Constitution, pushed forward in
similar violation of International Law in fundamental principles, and
crowned by intolerable indignity to the Black Republic, even to the
extent of menacing hostilities and the sinking of its ships,--all
without authority of Congress, and by Presidential prerogative alone.
In this drama the President, like a favorite actor, assumed every
part. In negotiating the treaty he was President; in declaring war
he was Congress; in sending ships and men he was Commander-in-Chief;
and then in employing private influence with Senators to promote his
scheme--according to the promise in the protocol with Baez, signed in
his name by Orville E. Babcock, entitled therein “Aide-de-Camp to his
Excellency General Ulysses S. Grant, President of the United States of
America”--he was lobbyist. That such things can be done by a President
without indignant condemnation, loud and universal, shows a painful
demoralization in the country. That their author can be presented for
reëlection to the Presidency, whose powers he has thus misused, shows a
disheartening insensibility to public virtue.

Here I remark, that, so long as the President confined himself to
negotiation, he was strictly within the line of the Constitution.
Even if indiscreet in character and impolitic in object, it was not
unconstitutional. But in seizing war powers without the authority of
Congress, in upholding the usurper Baez that he might sell his country,
in menacing the Black Republic, and then in playing the lobbyist to
promote the contrivance, the President did what no other President
ever did before, and what, for the sake of Republican Institutions,
should be rebuked by the American people. It was the knowledge of these
proceedings that changed essentially my relations to the question.

PERSONAL MISREPRESENTATIONS.

I allude with hesitation to personal misrepresentations on the matter.
It has been said that I promised originally to support the treaty.
This is a mistake. I knew nothing of the treaty, and had no suspicion
of it, until several months after the protocol, and some time after
the negotiation was completed; and then my simple promise was that it
should have from me “the most careful and candid consideration”; and
such I gave it most sincerely. At first my opposition was reserved
and without allusion to the President. It was only when the strange
business was fully disclosed in official documents communicated in
confidence to the Senate, and it was still pressed, that I felt
impelled to a sterner resistance. Especially was I constrained, when I
found how much the people of Hayti suffered. It so happened that I had
reported the bill acknowledging their independence and establishing
diplomatic relations between our two countries, assuring that equality
which had been violated. Not unmoved could I witness the wrong
inflicted upon them. And has it come to this, that the President of the
Great Republic, instead of carrying peace and good tidings to Africans
commencing the experiment of self-government, should become to them an
agent of terror?

It is difficult to see how I could have done otherwise. Anxious to
excuse the anger towards me, it has been said that I opposed the treaty
because Mr. Motley was unceremoniously removed from the mission at
London; and here you will see the extent to which misrepresentation has
gone. It so happens that Mr. Motley was removed on the day immediately
following the rejection of the treaty. Evidently my opposition was not
influenced by the removal: was the removal influenced by my opposition?

Equally absurd is the story that I am now influenced by personal
feelings. I am a public servant, trained to duty; and now, as always
before, I have yielded only to this irresistible mandate. With me
there is no alternative. The misconduct of the President, so apparent
in the San Domingo device, became more conspicuous in the light of
illustrative facts, showing it to be part of a prevailing misrule,
which, for the sake of our country, should not be prolonged. As a
patriot citizen, anxious for the national welfare and renown, am I
obliged to declare these convictions.

* * * * *

I am now brought to those two chief measures to be advanced by the
election of Horace Greeley, each of controlling importance,--one
looking directly to purity and efficiency in the government, and the
other to the peace and welfare of our country.

ONE-TERM PRINCIPLE.

The principle of One Term for President is the corner-stone of a
reformed civil service. So plain is this to my apprehension, that I am
at a loss to understand how any one sincerely in favor of such reform
can fail to insist upon this principle. All experience shows that the
employment of the appointing power to promote the personal ends of
the President is the great disturbing influence in our civil service.
Here is the comprehensive abuse which envelops all the offices of the
country, making them tributary to one man, and subordinate to his
desires. Let this be changed, and you have the first stage of reform,
without which all other measures are dilatory, if not feeble and
inefficient. How futile to recommend, as is done by the Commissioners
on Civil Service, “an honest competitive examination,” while the rules
for this system are left to the discretion of a President seeking
reëlection! “Lead us not into temptation” is part of the brief prayer
we are all taught to repeat; nor are Presidents above the necessity of
this prayer. The misuse of the appointing power to advance ambitious
aims is a temptation to which a President must not be exposed. For his
sake, and for the sake of the country, this must not be.

In attributing peril to this influence, I speak not only from my own
careful observation, but from the testimony of others whose words are
authoritative. You do not forget how Andrew Jackson declared that
the limitation of the office to one term was required, in order to
place the President “beyond the reach of any improper influences” and
“uncommitted to any other course than the strict line of constitutional
duty,”[183]--how William Henry Harrison announced, that, with the
adoption of this principle, “the incumbent would devote all his time
to the public interest, and there would be no cause to misrule the
country,”[184]--how Henry Clay was satisfied, after much observation
and reflection, “that too much of the time, the thoughts, and the
exertions of the incumbent are occupied during his first term in
securing his reëlection,”[185]--and how my senatorial associate of
many years, Benjamin F. Wade, after denouncing the reëligibility of
the President, said, “There are defects in the Constitution, and
this is among the most glaring.”[186] According to this experienced
Senator, the reëligibility of the President is not only a defect in the
Constitution, but one of its most glaring defects.

And such also was the declared opinion of the present incumbent before
his election and the temptation of a second term. It has been stated
by one who conferred with him at the time, that immediately before
his nomination General Grant said, in the spirit of Andrew Jackson,
“The liberties of the country cannot be maintained without a One-Term
Amendment of the Constitution”; and another writes me, that while on
a walk between the White House and the Treasury, just at the head of
the steps, near the fountain, the General paused a moment, and said,
“I am in favor of restricting the President to a single term, and of
abolishing the office of Vice-President.” By the authority of this
declaration, the “Morning Chronicle,”[187] the organ of the Republican
party at Washington, proclaimed of its Presidential candidate, “He is,
moreover, an advocate of the One-Term principle, as conducing toward
the proper administration of the law”; and then at a later date,[188]
after calling for the adoption of this principle, the same Republican
organ said, “General Grant is in favor of it.” Unquestionably at
that time, while the canvass was proceeding, he allowed himself to
be commended as a supporter of this principle. That he should now
disregard it gives new reason for the prayer, “Lead us not into
temptation.”

Never before was the necessity for this beneficent Amendment more
apparent; for never before was the wide-spread abuse from the
reëligibility of the President more grievously conspicuous. De
Tocqueville, the illustrious Frenchman, who saw our institutions with a
vision quickened by genius and chastened by friendly regard, discerned
the peril, when he said:--

“Intrigue and corruption are the natural vices of elective
government; but when the head of the State can be reëlected, these
evils rise to a great height and compromise the very existence of
the country. When a simple candidate seeks to rise by intrigue,
his manœuvres must be limited to a very narrow sphere; _but when
the Chief Magistrate enters the lists, he borrows the strength of
the Government for his own purposes_.… If the representative of
the Executive descends into the combat, the cares of Government
dwindle for him into second-rate importance, and the success of his
election is his first concern.”[189]

Nothing can be more true than these remarkable words, which are
completely verified in what we now behold. The whole diversified
machinery of the National Government in all its parts, operating in
State, District, Town, and Village, is now at work to secure the
reëlection of the President, as for some time before it worked to
secure his renomination,--the whole being obedient to the central touch.

Look for a moment at this machinery, or, if you please, at this
political hierarchy, beginning with Cabinet officers, and reaching
to the pettiest postmaster, every one diligent to the single end of
serving Presidential aspiration. The Jeffersonian rule was, “Is he
honest? Is he capable? Is he faithful to the Constitution?” But this
is now lost in the mightier law, “Is he faithful to reëlection?”
This failing, all merit fails. Every office-holder, from highest to
lowest, according to his influence, becomes propagandist, fugleman,
whipper-in. Members of the Cabinet set the example, and perambulate
the country, instructing the people to vote for reëlection. Heads of
Bureaus do likewise. Then, in their respective localities, officers of
the Customs, officers of the Internal Revenue, marshals with their
deputies, and postmasters, each and all, inspired from the National
Capitol, are all calling for reëlection. This organized power,
variously estimated at from sixty to eighty thousand in number, all
paid by the Government, and overspreading the whole country in one
minute network, has unprecedented control at this moment, partly from
increased facilities of communication, and partly from the military
drill which still survives the war, but more, perhaps, from the
determined will of the President, to which all these multitudinous
wills are subjugated. This simple picture, which nobody can question,
reveals a tyranny second only to that of the Slave Power itself,--which
Jefferson seems to have foreseen, when, after portraying the
Legislature as most to be feared in his day, he said, “The tyranny of
the Executive will come in its turn.”[190] Even his prophetic vision
did not enable him to foresee the mournful condition we now deplore,
with the One-Man Power lording itself through all the offices of the
country.

The recent election in North Carolina made this practically manifest.
Even without a telescope, all could discern the operations of the
field. Postmasters and officers of Internal Revenue were on hand,
each in his place; then came the Marshal, with files of deputies,
extemporized for the occasion; while, ranging over the extensive
circuit, was the Supervisor of the Revenue; the whole instructed and
animated by members of the Cabinet, who abandoned their responsible
duties to help reëlection, which for the time was above all departments
of Government and all exigencies of the public service. In the same way
the chief Custom-Houses of the country have been enlisted. Each has
become a political centre whose special object is reëlection. Authentic
evidence before a Congressional Committee shows that Thomas Murphy,
while Collector of New York, acting as Lieutenant of the President,
sought to control the Republican State Convention by tendering office
to four men, in consideration of the return of certain delegates,
promising that “he would immediately send their names on to Washington
and have them appointed”; and by way of enforcing the Presidential
supremacy, he announced with startling effrontery that “President Grant
was the representative and head of the Republican party, and all good
Republicans should support him in all his measures and appointments,
and any one who did not do it should be _crushed out_.”[191] If this
were not authenticated under oath, it would be hard to believe. But
the New Orleans Custom-House has a story much worse. Here Presidential
pretension is mixed with unblushing corruption, in which the Collector,
a brother-in-law, is a chief actor. And all for reëlection.[192]

This prostitution of the offices of the country to the Presidential
will can be upheld only by unhesitating partisan zeal, discarding
reason and patriotism. Already it has been condemned in an official
Report made to the House of Representatives, November 25, 1867, by Mr.
Boutwell, as Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, and signed by
him. His direct object was to arraign Andrew Johnson; but these words
declare a rule applicable to all Presidents:--

“The presence and active participation of _two of the Heads of
Departments_ in a political convention at Philadelphia, having
for its object the organization of a party to sustain the policy
of the President and defeat the will of Congress and the people,
and one of those functionaries the prime agent in the removals
from and appointments to office for ‘political reasons,’ is a fact
well known to the country. The like had not happened before in its
history. In the view of right-minded men, it was something more
than a public scandal.”[193]

The Report adduces the authority of John Locke, the eminent
philosopher, as declaring “the employment of ‘the force, treasure, and
_offices of the society to corrupt the representatives, or openly to
preëngage the electors, and prescribe what manner of persons shall be
chosen_,’ as among those breaches of trust in the executive magistrate
which amounts to a dissolution of the Government; for ‘what is it,’ he
says, ‘but to cut up the Government by the roots, and poison the very
fountains of public security?’”[194] But all this we witness here.
The offices are employed to preëngage the electors, and prescribe the
persons to be chosen. Nor do I see any corrective of this undoubted
abuse, especially after the example now set in high quarters, so long
as the President is a candidate for reëlection.

Therefore, to arrest a flagrant tyranny, and to secure purity in the
Government, also to save the President from himself, should this
Amendment be adopted; and since Horace Greeley is known to be its
strenuous supporter, we have an unanswerable reason in his behalf.

RECONCILIATION.

From the practical question of Civil Service Reform I pass to
Reconciliation, being the most important issue ever presented to the
American people,--reconciliation not only between the two once warring
sections, but also between the two races. This issue, so grand and
beautiful, was distinctly presented, when Horace Greeley, in accepting
the Republican nomination at Cincinnati, wrote these memorable words:--

“In this faith, and with the distinct understanding, that, if
elected, I shall be the President, not of a party, but of the whole
people, I accept your nomination,--in the confident trust that the
masses of our countrymen, North and South, are eager to clasp hands
across the bloody chasm which has too long divided them, forgetting
that they have been enemies, in the joyful consciousness that they
are, and must henceforth remain, brethren.”[195]

The issue was again presented, when thereafter the Democratic Party
in National Convention, acting under an irresistible movement of the
people, nominated the author of these words.

It is difficult to see how this noble aspiration can find other
than a generous response. Nothing but a party spirit which forgets
the obligations of Christian duty could treat it with indifference,
much less make it the occasion of misrepresentation. By no effort of
ingenuity or malignity can it be tortured into anything but an offer of
reconciliation, while the very letter of acceptance, where it appears,
declares the established supremacy of Equal Rights. Observe also that
it is made only when the work of Reconstruction is ended. Here is the
testimony of a Senator of South Carolina, in a speech in the Senate,
January 22, 1872:--

“The last of the Southern States is admitted to its full privileges
as a member of the brotherhood of States; the Constitutional
Amendments intended to secure the principles established by the war
and subsequent events have been accepted as valid. There can be no
fear or danger of their being disturbed.”[196]

But these things are forgotten; the Sermon on the Mount is forgotten
also; the Beatitudes are put aside. A great writer of the Middle Ages,
after dwelling on what is best for us, says:--

“Hence it is that not riches, not pleasures, not honors, not length
of life, not health, not strength, not comeliness, was sung to the
shepherds from on high, but peace.”[197]

The supporters of reëlection will not hearken to this song, and the
proffered hand is rejected. If not war, they would preserve at least
the passions of war, and instead of peace would scatter distrust and
defiance. The old fable is renewed:--

“Emboldened now on fresh attempt he goes,
With serpent’s teeth the fertile furrows sows;
The glebe fermenting with enchanted juice
Makes the snake’s teeth a human crop produce.”[198]

For me there can be but one course on this issue, and the moment it
was presented I seemed to behold, for the first time, the dawn of that
better era in our country when the Equal Rights of All should be
placed under the safeguard of assured Peace and Reconciliation. Had I
failed to sympathize with this endeavor, I should have been false to
the record of my life. My first public utterance, as far back as July
4, 1845, was to commend the cause of Peace, which from that early day,
amidst the contentions of public duty and the terrible responsibilities
of war, has never been absent from my mind. While insisting on the
Abolition of Slavery, while urging Enfranchisement, while vindicating
the Equal Rights of All, and while pressing Reconstruction, I have
constantly declared that all these were for no purpose of vengeance
or punishment, but only for the security of the citizen and the
establishment of government on just foundations, and that when this
was done nobody should outdo me in those generosities that become the
conqueror more than his conquest.

PERSONAL RECORD.

Here the testimony is complete. If I open it now, it is less to show
the obligations which constrain me personally than to make these
witnesses plead again the cause which from the beginning I have had at
heart. I follow the order of time, letting each speak in a few words.

There are some among us who may remember that early speech before
the Republican State Convention at Worcester, October 1, 1861, which
excited at the time so much discussion, when, after calling for
Emancipation, I united this cause with Peace:--

“Two objects are before us, _Union and Peace_, each for the sake
of the other, and both for the sake of the country; but without
Emancipation how can we expect either?”[199]

Thus at the beginning was I mindful of Peace.

Then again, in the same strain, at the Cooper Institute, New York,
November 27, 1861, after showing Slavery to be the origin and
main-spring of the Rebellion, I pleaded for Emancipation, and at the
same time first sounded the key-note of Reconciliation:--

“Perversely and pitifully do you postpone that sure period of
_reconciliation, not only between the two sections, not only
between the men of the North and the men of the South, but, more
necessary still, between slave and master_, without which the true
tranquillity we all seek cannot be permanently assured. Believe it,
_only through such reconciliation_, under sanction of freedom, can
you remove all occasions of conflict hereafter.”[200]

Thus early was reconciliation associated with my most earnest efforts;
nor did I at any moment hesitate in this work.

The same spirit was manifest in opposition to perpetuating the memory
of victories over fellow-citizens. The question arose on a dispatch of
General McClellan, where, after announcing the capture of Williamsburg,
he inquired whether he was “authorized to follow the example of other
generals, and direct the names of battles to be placed on the colors of
regiments.”[201] This being communicated to the Senate, I felt it my
duty to move, May 8, 1862, the following resolution:--

“_Resolved_, That in the efforts now making for _the restoration of
the Union and the establishment of peace throughout the country_,
it is inexpedient that the names of victories obtained over our
fellow-citizens should be placed on the regimental colors of the
United States.”[202]

Here again was anxiety for peace. Mr. Wilson, my colleague,
did not agree with me, and he made haste to introduce a
counter-resolution;[203] but no further action was had upon it. The
usage of civilized nations is against placing on regimental colors the
names of victories gained over fellow-countrymen. In France, the most
military country of the world, the principle was carefully discarded by
King Louis Philippe, when, in preparing the Museum at Versailles, he
excluded every picture or image of civil war. Everything to arouse and
gratify the patriotic pride of Frenchmen, of all Frenchmen, is there,
but nothing to exhibit Frenchmen warring with each other.

Then came the bills for Confiscation, which I supported chiefly with
a view to Emancipation. While enforcing this object, May 19, 1862, I
said:--

“People talk flippantly of the gallows as the certain doom of
the Rebels. This is a mistake. For weal or woe, the gallows is
out of the question. It is not possible as a punishment for this
rebellion.”

Then declaring our supreme object to be Peace, I said:

“In this work it is needless to say _there is no place for any
sentiment of hate or any suggestion of vengeance_. There can
be no exaction and no punishment beyond the necessity of the
case,--nothing harsh, nothing excessive. Lenity and pardon become
the conqueror more even than victory. ‘Do in time of peace the most
good, and in time of war the least evil possible: such is the Law
of Nations.’ These are the admirable words of an eminent French
magistrate and statesman. In this spirit it is our duty to assuage
the calamities of war, and especially to spare an inoffensive
population.”[204]

Shortly afterwards, June 27th, while the same subject was under
consideration, I returned to it again:--

“But I confess frankly that I look with more hope and confidence
to Liberation than to Confiscation. To give freedom is nobler
than to take property, and on this occasion it cannot fail to be
more efficacious, for in this way the rear-guard of the Rebellion
will be changed into the advance-guard of the Union. There is in
Confiscation, unless when directed against the criminal authors of
the Rebellion, a harshness inconsistent with that mercy which it
is always a sacred duty to cultivate, and which should be manifest
in proportion to our triumphs, ‘mightiest in the mightiest.’ _But
Liberation is not harsh; and it is certain, if properly conducted,
to carry with it the smiles of a benignant Providence._”[205]

At last the country was gladdened by the Proclamation of Emancipation,
which here in Faneuil Hall, October 6, 1862, I vindicated as a measure
of peace; and then I said:--

“In the old war between King and Parliament, which rent England,
the generous Falkland cried from his soul, _Peace! Peace!_--and
History gratefully records his words. Never did he utter this cry
with more earnestness than I do now. But how shall the blessing be
secured?”[206]

_By Emancipation_, was my answer.

Then came the bill creating the Freedmen’s Bureau. In opening the
debate on this interesting subject, June 8, 1864, I said:--

“It is for the Senate to determine, under the circumstances,
what it will do. My earnest hope is that it will do something.
The opportunity must not be lost of helping so many persons now
helpless, and _of aiding the cause of Reconciliation, without which
peace cannot be assured_.”[207]

Here again Reconciliation is announced as an ever-present object.

In the same spirit, I deemed it my duty to oppose the efforts made in
the winter of 1865 to authorize Retaliation, differing from valued
friends. The proposition for Retaliation was met by the following
declaration, moved by me, January 24th:--

“The United States … call upon all to bear witness that in this
necessary warfare with Barbarism they renounce all vengeance and
every evil example, and plant themselves firmly on the sacred
landmarks of Christian civilization, under the protection of that
God who is present with every prisoner, and enables heroic souls to
suffer for their country.”[208]

Then came the effort, favored by President Lincoln, to receive
Louisiana with a Constitution which failed to recognize the equal
rights of colored fellow-citizens. Here again, February 25th, I
encountered the proposition by a resolution, where it is declared:--

“That such an oligarchical government is not competent at this
moment to discharge the duties and execute the powers of a State;
and that its recognition as a legitimate government will tend to
enfeeble the Union, _to postpone the day of Reconciliation_, and to
endanger the national tranquillity.”[209]

Mark, if you please, “_the day of Reconciliation_.”

Then came the question of perpetuating the memory of our victories.
February 27th, the Senate having under consideration an appropriation
for a picture in the National Capitol, I moved as an amendment,--

“That in the National Capitol, dedicated to the National Union,
there shall be no picture of a victory in battle with our own
fellow-citizens.”[210]

Mr. Wilson again made haste to announce that he “disagreed with his
colleague altogether,”--saying, according to the “Congressional
Globe,”[211] “I do not believe in that doctrine.”

In the eulogy on President Lincoln, pronounced before the municipal
authorities of Boston, June 1, 1865, the great object of Reconciliation
was presented as dependent on the establishment of our ideas. After
insisting upon Emancipation and the Equal Suffrage, these words occur:--

“Such a vengeance will be a kiss of reconciliation, for it will
remove every obstacle to peace and harmony. The people where
Slavery once ruled will bless the blow that destroyed it. The
people where the kindred tyranny of Caste once prevailed will
rejoice that this fell under the same blow. They will yet confess
that it was dealt in no harshness, in no unkindness, in no desire
to humiliate, but simply and solemnly, in the name of the Republic
and of Human Nature, for their good as well as ours,--ay, for their
good more than ours.

“By ideas, more than by armies, we have conquered. The sword of the
Archangel was less mighty than the mission he bore from the Lord.
But if the ideas giving us the victory are now neglected, if the
pledges of the Declaration, which the Rebellion openly assailed,
are left unredeemed, then have blood and treasure been lavished for
nought.”

Then I proceeded to ask:--

“How shall these ideas be saved? How shall the war waged by Abraham
Lincoln be brought to an end, _so as to assure peace, tranquillity,
and reconciliation_?”[212]

In the speech at Worcester, before the Republican State Convention,
September 14, 1865, I insisted upon guaranties for the national
freedman and the national creditor; and until these were accomplished,
proposed to exclude the Rebel from political power:--

“I ask not his punishment. I would not be harsh. There is nothing
humane that I would reject. Nothing in hate. Nothing in vengeance.
Nothing in passion. I am for gentleness. I am for a velvet glove;
but for a while I wish the hand of iron. I confess that I have
little sympathy with those hypocrites of magnanimity whose appeal
for the Rebel master is only a barbarous indifference towards
the slave; _and yet they cannot more than I desire the day of
Reconciliation_.”[213]

Thus constantly did this idea return.

And yet again, in a letter to the “Evening Post” of New York, dated
September 28, 1865, after insisting upon “supplementary safeguards” for
the protection of the freedman, I used these words:--

“Without this additional provision, I see small prospect of
_that peace and reconciliation which are the objects so near our
hearts_.”[214]

Again it appeared in a telegraphic dispatch to President Johnson, dated
November 12, 1865, and afterwards published. Asking the President to
suspend his “policy towards the Rebel States,” I said:--

“I should not present this prayer, if I were not painfully
convinced that thus far it has failed to obtain any _reasonable
guaranties for that security in the future which is essential to
peace and reconciliation_.… The Declaration of Independence asserts
the equality of all men, and that rightful government can be
founded only on the consent of the governed. I see small chance of
peace, unless these great principles are practically established.
Without this, the house will continue divided against itself.”[215]

Here Reconciliation is associated with Reconstruction on the basis of
the Equality of All Men.

Shortly afterwards, in the “Atlantic Monthly” for December, 1865, p.
758, I pleaded again:--

“The lesson of Clemency is of perpetual obligation.… Harshness
is bad. Cruelty is detestable. Even Justice may relent at the
prompting of Mercy. Fail not, then, to cultivate the grace of
Clemency.…

“There must be no vengeance upon enemies; but there must be no
sacrifice of friends. And here is the distinction never to be
forgotten: _Nothing for vengeance; everything for justice_. Follow
this rule, and the Republic will be safe and glorious.”[216]

Then again in the Senate speech, February 5 and 6, 1866, while dwelling
at length upon Equal Suffrage without distinction of color, I thus
spoke for the Southern people:--

“The people there are my fellow-citizens, and gladly would I
hail them, if they would permit, as no longer _a section_, no
longer _the South_, but an integral part of the Republic, under a
Constitution which, knowing no North and no South, cannot tolerate
_sectional_ pretension. Gladly, in all sincerity, do I offer
my best effort for their welfare. But I see clearly that there
is nothing in the compass of mortal power so important to them
in every respect, morally, politically, and economically--that
there is nothing with such certain promise to them of beneficent
result--that there is nothing so sure to make their land smile
with industry and fertility,--as the decree of Equal Rights I now
invoke.… This is our retaliation. This is our only revenge.”[217]

In an address at the Music Hall, in Boston, October 2, 1866, entitled
“The One-Man Power _vs._ Congress,” I declared that the Reconstruction
I sought was one where “the Rebel region, no longer harassed by
controversy and degraded by injustice, _will enjoy the richest fruits
of security and reconciliation_,”--and then added, “_To labor for this
cause may well tempt the young and rejoice the old_.”[218]

Then, in the same address, I said:--

“Our first duty is to provide safeguards for the future. This can
be only by provisions, sure, fundamental, and irrepealable, fixing
forever the results of the war, the obligations of the Government,
and the equal rights of all. Such is the suggestion of common
prudence and of self-defence, as well as of common honesty. To this
end we must make haste slowly. States which precipitated themselves
out of Congress must not be permitted to precipitate themselves
back. They must not enter the Halls they treasonably deserted,
until we have every reasonable assurance of future good conduct. We
must not admit them, and then repent our folly.…

“But, while holding this ground of prudence, I desire to disclaim
every sentiment of vengeance or punishment, and also every thought
of delay or procrastination. Here I do not yield to the President,
or to any other person. Nobody more anxious than I to see this
chasm closed forever.

“_There is a long way and a short way. There is a long time and a
short time._ If there be any whose policy is for the longest way
or for the longest time, I am not of the number. _I am for the
shortest way, and also for the shortest time._”[219]

Then in considering Reconstruction in the Senate, March 16, 1867, I
said:--

“But I ask nothing in vengeance or unkindness. All that I propose
is for their good, with which is intertwined the good of all.
I would not impose any new penalty or bear hard upon an erring
people. Oh, no! I simply ask a new safeguard for the future, that
these States, through which so much trouble has come, may be a
strength and a blessing to our common country, with prosperity
and happiness everywhere within their borders. I would not impose
any new burden; but I seek a new triumph for civilization. _For a
military occupation bristling with bayonets I would substitute the
smile of Peace._”

I then said:--

“But this cannot be without Education. As the soldier disappears,
his place must be supplied by the schoolmaster. The muster-roll
will be exchanged for the school-register, and our head-quarters
will be in a school-house.”

And I accompanied this with a proposition to require in the
reconstructed States “a system of public schools open to all, without
distinction of race or color,” which was lost by a tie vote, being 20
to 20.[220]

The subject recurred again in the Senate July 13, 1867, when, after
declaring regret at the inadequacy of the pending measure, especially
in not securing a system of Public Education, and not excluding Rebel
influence, I remarked:--

“In saying this, I desire to add, that, in my judgment, all
exclusions belong to what I call _the transition period_. When
Reconstruction is accomplished, the time will come for us to open
the gates.”[221]

In these few words will be found the ruling principle which I have
recognized in Reconstruction.

The address, “Are We a Nation?” made at the Cooper Institute, November
19, 1867, testifies again to Reconciliation. After showing how the
national supremacy in the guardianship of equal rights is consistent
with local self-government, and vindicating the two in their respective
spheres, it says:--

“There will be a sphere alike for the States and Nation. Local
self-government, which is the pride of our institutions, will
be reconciled with the national supremacy in maintenance of
human rights, and the two together will constitute the elemental
principles of the Republic. The States will exercise a minute
jurisdiction required for the convenience of all; the Nation
will exercise that other paramount jurisdiction required for the
protection of all. _The reconciliation--God bless the word!_--thus
begun will embrace the people, who, forgetting past differences,
will feel more than ever that they are one.”[222]

Then again, in addressing the Republican State Convention at Worcester,
September 22, 1869, I said:--

“Do not think me harsh; do not think me austere. I am not. I will
not be outdone by anybody in clemency; nor at the proper time will
I be behind any one in opening all doors of office and trust.…
Who can object, if men recently arrayed against their country are
told to stand aside yet a little longer, until all are secure in
their rights? Here is no fixed exclusion,--nothing of which there
can be any just complaint,--nothing which is not practical, wise,
humane,--nothing which is not born of justice rather than victory.
In the establishment of Equal Rights conquest loses its character,
and is no longer conquest,--

‘For then both parties nobly are subdued,
And neither party loser.’”[223]

PERSONAL DUTY.

Here I suspend this testimony. Such is the simple and harmonious
record, showing how from the beginning I was devoted to peace,--how
constantly I longed for reconciliation,--how with every measure
of Equal Rights this longing found utterance,--how it became an
essential part of my life,--how I discarded all idea of vengeance
or punishment,--how Reconstruction was to my mind a transition
period,--and how earnestly I looked forward to the day, when, after
the recognition of Equal Rights, the Republic should again be one in
reality as in name. If there are any who ever maintained a policy of
hate, I was never so minded; and now in protesting against any such
policy, I only act in obedience to the irresistible promptings of my
soul.

In embracing the opportunity unexpectedly presented at this election,
I keep myself still in harmony with the past. Unable to vote a second
time for President Grant, and confident that the choice of Horace
Greeley will tend to assure that triumph of peace which has occupied so
much of my desires, it only remains to vote for him. I would not expect
too much; but, knowing something of the spirit in which the Democratic
party has adopted him as its candidate, and knowing something also of
his eminent character, I cannot doubt that with his election there will
be a new order of things, where the harsh instrumentalities of power
will yield to a sentiment of good-will, and surviving irritations will
be lost in concord. The war is ended. There must be an end also to
belligerent passions; and the freedman, assured in rights, must enter
upon a new career of happiness and prosperity. Such, at least, is
the object I now seek. Even those differing from me in faith at this
critical moment will not deny that such a result would mark an epoch in
American history. And now, in the hope of its accomplishment, I forget
personal consequences, and think only of the inestimable good.

PREJUDICE AND INVENTION.

The partisans of Reëlection, resorting to prejudice and invention,
insist, first, that the Democratic party, which has adopted as its
candidate an original Republican on a Republican platform, will
prove untrue, and, secondly, that the candidate himself will prove
untrue,--as if the Democratic party were not bound now to the very
principles declared at Philadelphia, without the viscous alloy of
Grantism, and as if the life and character of the candidate were not a
sufficient answer to any such slander.

ADHESION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

Evidently there are individuals, calling themselves Democrats, who
feel little sympathy with the movement, and there are others who
insist upon the old hates, whether towards the North or towards the
freedman. Unhappily, this is only according to human nature. It must
be so. Therefore, though pained in feeling, my trust is not disturbed
by sporadic cases cited in newspapers, or by local incidents. This is
clear: in spite of politicians, and against their earnest efforts, the
people represented in the Democratic Convention adopted a Republican
nomination and platform. Baltimore answered to Cincinnati. A popular
uprising, stirred by irresistible instinct, triumphed over all
resistance. The people were wiser than their leaders,--illustrating
again the saying of the French statesman, so experienced in human
affairs, that above the wisdom of any individual, however great, is the
wisdom of all. But this testifies to that Providence which shapes our
ends:

“So Providence for us, high, infinite,
Makes our necessities its watchful task.”

Plainly in recent events there has been a presiding influence against
which all machinations have been powerless. Had the Convention at
Philadelphia nominated a good Republican, truly representing Republican
principles without drawback, there is no reason to believe that Horace
Greeley would have been a candidate. The persistence for President
Grant dissolved original bonds, and gave practical opportunity to the
present movement. The longing for peace, which in existing antagonisms
of party was without effective expression, at last found free course.

Accordingly the original Republican who had announced himself ready
to “clasp hands” in peace was accepted on a Republican platform,
declaring support of the three Constitutional amendments, and placing
in the foreground the great truth that all men are equal before the
law. Such is the historic fact. That the party will be disloyal to this
act, that it will turn its back on its covenants, and seek through a
Republican President to reverse these safeguards, or in any way impair
their efficacy, is not only without probability, but to imagine it is
absolutely absurd.

Beyond the unequivocal adhesion of the party in its corporate capacity
is that of eminent members who volunteer as individuals in the same
declarations, so that personal pledge unites with party obligation. I
quote two instances at hand.

Mr. Hendricks, so well known for his service in the National Senate,
said recently in the Democratic State Convention of Indiana, on his
nomination for Governor:--

“We have this day substantially turned our backs upon the Past. We
now stand in the Present, and look forward to the great Future. The
Past is gone.”

Nobody in the country can speak for his party with more authority; nor
could there be better words to denote the change that has occurred.

Mr. Kerr, also of Indiana, an able Democratic Representative in
Congress, and now Congressional candidate at large, bears the same
testimony. In a recent speech this distinguished Democrat says:--

“The best impulse, the most patriotic sentiment, the most
intelligent judgment of the wisest and the best men of the country
now demand that the accomplished results of our great civil war,
as they are crystallized in the Amendments to the Constitution,
shall stand as parts of the fundamental law of the country, to be
obeyed and maintained in good faith, without evasion, denial, or
diminution, in favor of all classes of the people. The Democratic
party, in the most authoritative and solemn manner, accepts this
judgment.”

Nothing could be more complete. All the Amendments are “to be obeyed
and maintained in good faith, without evasion, denial, or diminution,
in favor of all classes of the people”; and this is the covenant of the
Democratic party, countersigned by their Representative. Not content
with this unequivocal adhesion, the speaker proceeds:--

“Any intelligent citizen, in public or private life, who
charges that the Democratic party, if invested with power,
would reëstablish slavery, or pay for slaves, or assume or pay
Confederate debts, and take suffrage from colored men, or do other
acts in defiance of the Constitution, must be a hypocrite and
a demagogue, and he can have no higher aim than to slander and
deceive.”

It is easy to pardon the indignation with which this Democrat repels
the calumnies employed to sow distrust.

In strictest harmony with these authorities is the public press
entitled to speak for the Democratic party. Out of innumerable
testimonies I content myself with two.

The Cincinnati “Enquirer,” a leading Democratic journal, of August 1st,
alluding to myself, says:--

“His confidence in the honor of the Democratic party is not
misplaced. It will stand by the position which it assumed at
Baltimore, and maintain it under any and all circumstances. Upon
that he may depend.”

Then again the same Democratic organ says:--

“It pleases some of the Grant papers to speak of Mr. Greeley as
a Democratic candidate, because he was nominated by a Democratic
Convention. They ignore the fact that he had been previously
nominated by a Republican Convention,--that he has always been a
Republican, and never cast a Democratic ballot in his life. None of
them have answered our query, whether they would have considered
General Grant the Democratic candidate, if he had been nominated at
Baltimore; and if not, why do they make the difference between him
and Greeley?”

The Washington “Patriot,” the Democratic journal at the national
capital, of August 7th, thus explicitly pronounces:--

“The Democratic party have loyally and honorably conditioned to
uphold the Cincinnati platform and all its obligations. _They mean
to fulfil that bond in good faith and to the last letter._ Hence
not a word was altered at Baltimore, not a letter changed, not a
comma erased. _We took it in the exact sense and in all the spirit
of the several declarations, with entire knowledge of the duty
which they enjoined, and an honest purpose to perform it at any
cost._ So far from regarding that acceptance as a sacrifice, it was
welcomed everywhere with joy.”

Are these speakers and these newspapers united in conspiracy to
deceive, or are they dupes? Spurning the idea of dishonest conspiracy,
I cannot doubt that they believe what they say, and that what they say
is true. Again I insist that the sallies of local disaffection or of
personal brutality, however painful or discreditable, cannot interfere
to change the open adhesion of the party, followed by declarations so
authentic in form. On this open adhesion and these declarations I act,
and to the complete fulfilment of all the obligations assumed I feel
that I may confidently hold the party.

MOTIVES TO KEEP THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY TRUE.

But why should the Democratic party be untrue to the covenants it
has assumed? This imputation, so insulting to a great political
organization, and to the distinguished members who have openly united
in its adhesion, cannot be accepted without some ground of reason,
or at least of presumption. But all reason and every presumption are
the other way. Men act according to their supposed interests,--this
is a law of human nature; but every interest of former Rebels is for
peace. Under the influence of uncontrolled passion, and for the sake of
Slavery, they went into rebellion; but now that passion has abated and
Slavery has ceased, they see that nothing is gained by prolonging the
animosities it engendered. Peace has become their absorbing interest.
So obvious is the advantage from this assured possession, that it is
unreasonable to suppose them indifferent when it is within reach; it
is absurd to imagine them professing peace as a cover for war,--war
in which they know they must fail. This explains the promptitude with
which they seized the opportunity now presented. At once they declared
their desire and offered the hand of fellowship, at the same time
announcing their acceptance of those great measures by which the Equal
Rights of All are assured.

The motives naturally governing former Rebels, in accepting Horace
Greeley and a Republican platform, are plain. There is, first, the
general prostration of their region, which they would see improved; but
this can be only by the establishment of peace undisturbed, so that
all men, white and black, may live in security. This is an essential
condition. Violence breeds a kindred crop; nor can distrust exist
without detriment to all. Let either appear, and the most fertile
fields will fail in productive power. Men will not mingle their sweat
with the soil, becoming colaborers with the sun,--they will not sow and
plough,--unless assured in the enjoyment of what the generous earth
is ready to yield. Above all, those truest allies so essential to
prosperous industry, capital and immigration, will turn away from the
land that is not blessed by peace. Security is a constant invitation
and encouragement. There must be security in all things,--security in
life, security in property, and security in rights, including Liberty
and Equality, the great promises of the Declaration of Independence.
Let any of these be in any peril, let any shadow rest upon their
enjoyment, and the whole community must suffer. Therefore by the
impulse of self-interest, now clearly manifest, are the people of the
South moved to the present effort for peace.

This same motive assumes another form in the desire to escape from
existing misrule, which has left such traces in the disordered finances
of the Southern States. So colossal has been the scale of plunder that
even authentic report seems like fable. Second only to the wide-spread
devastations of war are the robberies to which these States have been
subjected,--I am sorry to say, under an Administration calling itself
Republican, at Washington, and with local governments deriving their
animating impulse from the party in power, with the President as its
dominant head. Surely the people in these communities would have been
less than men, if, sinking under the intolerable burden, they did not
turn for help to a new party, promising reform and honesty. They have
seen custom-houses used to maintain the plunderers in power; they have
seen all available political forces pressed to procure the renewed rule
of the President under whom they have suffered so much; and they have
seen this very President teach by example that every office-holder
should begin by looking out for himself. It would be a wonder, if they
did not join the present movement and maintain its declared purposes to
the end.

It is easy to see that under these promptings, where personal and local
interests were so strong, Horace Greeley was commended as a candidate,
and then sincerely accepted. They knew him as the steadfast enemy of
Slavery so long as it existed, dealing against it hard and constant
blows; they knew him as the faithful ally of the freedman, insisting
promptly upon his equal right to suffrage, which he vindicated with
persuasive power; and they knew him also as the devoted friend of the
colored race, never failing in effort for their welfare: but they knew
also that he was a lover of peace and honesty, whose soul had been
transfigured in works, and that, as sincerely as he had striven for the
colored race, he now strove to mitigate those other burdens which had
reduced them to a new slavery, being a debt which was like chain and
manacle upon their industry; and they were assured that with _him_ the
great office for which he is a candidate would be a trust and not a
personal perquisite, so that his example would be constant testimony
to industry, integrity, and fidelity in the discharge of public duties,
thus fixing a standard for all. These things being evident, how could
they hesitate?

FAITH IN HORACE GREELEY.

The partisans of Reëlection dwell much on the position and character
of Mr. Greeley, insisting that he cannot be trusted in the
Presidency,--partly because helped into power by Democrats, and partly
from an alleged want of stability. It is difficult to hear these
barefaced allegations, in utter disregard of the prodigious testimony
afforded by his long career, without wonder at the extent to which
prejudice and invention can be carried. Had he been presented at
Philadelphia with the saving sanction of a regular nomination, the same
partisans who now seek to exhibit him as a tool or an imbecile would
dwell with pride on his eminent qualities, making him, by the side of
his competitor, an angel of light. Knowing them both, his superiority
I may affirm. To say that under him Slavery can in any way be revived,
or that the Rebel debt or the pension of Rebel soldiers or compensation
for slaves can find favor, or that the equal rights of the freedmen, to
which he is so solemnly pledged, can in any way be impaired,--all this
is simply atrocious. Nothing of the kind can be done without violation
of the Constitution as amended,--not to speak of the departure from
that rule of life which he has ever followed. There is no Democrat
sympathizing with his nomination who would not spurn the infamous
treachery. I dismiss the whole partisan extravagance to the contempt it
deserves.

The imputation that his election will be the return to power of
the old Democratic party is much like saying that he will cease to
be himself, and that his surpassing individuality, making him so
conspicuous, will be lost. They who make the imputation forget that
this old party, if it has not ceased to exist, is changed in character.
Standing on a Republican platform, and with a Republican candidate,
it may look the Republican party in the face, claiming for itself
the Future, if not the Past. Plainly it is not that Democratic party
against which Republicans have contended. If Democrats have influence
with Horace Greeley, it will be because they have sincerely placed
themselves by his side on a platform which distinctly announces all
that Republicans have ever claimed.

Against all pretended distrust I oppose the open record of his life.
By this let him be judged. And here it will be observed, that, while
sometimes differing from others in methods, he has never, at any
moment, ceased to be a champion, being always the same. Here is a
private letter, which has only recently appeared, being a gleam of
sunlight from his soul, which the dark days of the war could not
quench:--

OFFICE OF THE TRIBUNE, NEW YORK,
June 26, 1863.

MY DEAR SIR,--In God’s good time this is to be a land of real
freedom, where equal rights and equal laws shall banish rebellion,
treason, and riot, and all manner of kindred diabolisms. I hardly
hope to live to see that day, but hope that those who may remember
me, when I am gone, will believe that I earnestly tried to hasten
its coming.

Yours,

HORACE GREELEY.

To suppose, that, under any circumstances of pressure or temptation,
he can fail in loyalty to the cause he has served so constantly, is
an offence to reason and to decency. In his two letters of acceptance
this loyalty is nobly conspicuous. Replying to the nomination at
Cincinnati, he drew the wise line between “local self-government” and
“centralization,” asserting the former as our true policy, “_subject_
to our solemn constitutional obligation to maintain the equal rights
of all citizens,”[224]--thus placing these under national safeguard,
and making them absolutely the same in all parts of the country.
Replying to the nomination at Baltimore, made after the enunciation
of this master principle, he announces his “hope and trust that the
first century of American Independence will not close before the
grand elemental truths on which its rightfulness was originally based
by Jefferson and the Continental Congress of 1776 will have become
the universally accepted and honored foundations of our political
fabric.”[225] And thus is his great record crowned.

Living so entirely in the public eye, all know his life, which
speaks for him now. Who so well as himself could stand the trial?
The “Tribune,” in its career of more than thirty years, speaks for
him also. Those opponents who in the work of disparagement assert
that he wants executive ability, I point to this journal, begun by
Horace Greeley in 1841, without partner or business associate, with a
cash capital of only one thousand dollars, and with but six hundred
subscribers. And yet, under his individual effort, by his amazing
industry and through his rare intelligence, with his determined nature
animating all, the enterprise prospered, until he found himself at
the head of one of the first newspapers of the world, completely
organized intellectually and mechanically, with writers for every
subject, with correspondents everywhere at home and abroad, and with a
constantly increasing influence never surpassed in newspaper history.
A President with the ability that did all this would impart new energy
to the public service, impressing it with his own faithful character,
and assuring, on a larger scale, a corresponding success, so that the
whole country would be gainer. Again, those opponents who assert that
Horace Greeley wants fidelity, or that he can be easily swayed against
life-long convictions, I point to this same journal, which from the
beginning, and throughout the whole course of its existence, has been
an unwavering representative of the liberal cause, foremost always
in warfare with Slavery, prompt in support of reform, inflexible in
honesty, and a beacon-flame to all struggling for human advancement.

Not to put faith in Horace Greeley is to act not only without evidence,
but against evidence so manifest and constant in unbroken continuity as
to seem like a law of Nature. As well distrust the sun in its appointed
course.

ANSWER TO TWO OBJECTIONS.

Such is the easy answer to objectors who cry out, that Democrats
uniting with Republicans on a Republican platform cannot be trusted,
and that the candidate himself cannot be trusted. The wantonness of
partisanship is too apparent in this pretension. I have considered it
carefully, as a lover of truth, and you have my conclusion. Therefore
do I say, Be not deterred from voting for Horace Greeley because
Democrats will also vote for him, but rather rejoice. Their votes will
be a new bond of peace, and a new assurance for the great principles
declared by our fathers at our birth as a nation.

THE OLIVE-BRANCH AND EQUAL RIGHTS.

And has not the time arrived when in sincerity we should accept the
olive-branch? Is it not time for the pen to take the place of the
sword? Is it not time for the Executive Mansion to be changed from
a barrack cesspool to a life-giving fountain? Is it not time for a
President who will show by example the importance of reform, and teach
the duty of subordinating personal objects to the public service? Is
it not time for the Head of the National Government to represent the
idea of peace and reconciliation, rather than of battle and strife?
Is it not time for that new era, when ancient enemies, forgetting the
past, shall “clasp hands” in true unity with the principles of the
Declaration of Independence as the supreme law? Deploring the fate
of Poland and of Ireland, I seize the earliest moment to escape from
similar possibility here. Mindful that the memories of the Past can
only yield to a happy Present, something would I do to promote this
end. Anxious for the Equal Rights of All, and knowing well that no
text of Law or Constitution is adequate without a supporting sentiment
behind, I cannot miss the opportunity afforded by the present election
of obtaining this strength for our great guaranties.

Reconstruction is now complete. Every State is represented in
the Senate, and every District is represented in the House of
Representatives. Every Senator and every Representative is in his
place. There are no vacant seats in either Chamber; and among the
members are fellow-citizens of the African race. And amnesty, nearly
universal, has been adopted. In this condition of things I find new
reason for change. The present incumbent knows little of our frame of
government. By military education and military genius he represents the
idea of Force; nor is he any exception to the rule of his profession,
which appreciates only slightly a government that is not arbitrary.
The time for the soldier has passed, especially when his renewed power
would once more remind fellow-citizens of their defeat. Victory over
fellow-citizens should be known only in the rights it assures; nor
should it be flaunted in the face of the vanquished. It should not
be inscribed on regimental colors, or portrayed in pictures at the
National Capitol. But the present incumbent is a regimental color with
the forbidden inscription; he is a picture at the National Capitol
recalling victories over fellow-citizens. It is doubtful if such a
presence can promote true reconciliation. Friendship does not grow
where former differences are thrust into sight. There are wounds of the
mind as of the body; these, too, must be healed. Instead of irritation
and pressure, let there be gentleness and generosity. Men in this
world get only what they give,--prejudice for prejudice, animosity
for animosity, hate for hate. Likewise confidence is returned for
confidence, good-will for good-will, friendship for friendship. On
this rule, which is the same for the nation as for the individual, I
would now act. So will the Republic be elevated to new heights of moral
grandeur, and our people will manifest that virtue, “greatest of all,”
which is found in charity. Above the conquest of others will be the
conquest of ourselves. Nor will any fellow-citizen suffer in rights,
but all will find new safeguard in the comprehensive fellowship.

NO NAMES OF BATTLES WITH FELLOW-CITIZENS ON THE ARMY-REGISTER OR THE
REGIMENTAL COLORS OF THE UNITED STATES.

BILL IN THE SENATE, DECEMBER 2, 1872.

December 2, 1872, Mr. Sumner asked, and by unanimous consent
obtained, leave to bring in the following bill, which was read
twice and ordered to be printed:--

A Bill to regulate the Army-Register and the Regimental Colors of the
United States.

Whereas the national unity and good-will among fellow-citizens can be
assured only through oblivion of past differences, and it is contrary
to the usage of civilized nations to perpetuate the memory of civil
war: Therefore,

_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled_, That the names of battles
with fellow-citizens shall not be continued in the Army-Register, or
placed on the regimental colors of the United States.

TRIBUTE TO HORACE GREELEY.

REMARKS INTENDED TO BE MADE IN THE SENATE, IN SECONDING A MOTION FOR
ADJOURNMENT ON THE OCCASION OF MR. GREELEY’S FUNERAL, DECEMBER 3, 1872.

The death of Mr. Greeley at the close of the canvass in which
nearly three millions of his fellow-citizens had given him their
suffrages for the Presidency, seemed, in the view of leading
Senators on both sides, to require from their body a respectful
recognition of the day appointed for his funeral; and it was
accordingly arranged that a motion for adjournment on this occasion
should be offered by Mr. Fenton, of New York, and seconded by
Mr. Sumner, with appropriate remarks by each. But a dominant
party-spirit, by recourse to parliamentary tactics, prevented
its introduction, and the day passed without notice. The remarks
designed by Mr. Sumner were as follows:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--I have been requested to second this motion. One word,
if you please. A funeral will take place to-morrow, on which the eyes
of the nation will rest, while innumerable hearts throb with grief, and
the people everywhere learn the instability of life and the commandment
of charity. It is proper, therefore, for the representatives of the
nation to suspend labor, that they too may be penetrated by the lesson
of the day. More for them than the illustrious dead is this needed. He
is gone beyond any earthly call; we remain. Duties are always for the
living; and now, standing at the open grave of HORACE GREELEY, we are
admonished to forget the strifes of party, and to remember only truth,
country, and mankind, to which his honest life was devoted. In other
days the horse and armor of the departed chieftain have been buried in
the grave where he reposed. So, too, may we bury the animosities, if
not the badges, of the past. Then, indeed, will there be victory for
the dead which all will share.

RELIEF OF BOSTON.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, DECEMBER 12, 1872.

The subject under consideration was a bill from the House providing
for a drawback of the duties on all materials imported into Boston
for the rebuilding of that portion of the city laid waste by the
recent conflagration,--with amendments, including one excepting
lumber, proposed by the Committee on Finance, to whom the bill had
been referred.

Mr. Sumner said:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--Hoping that the Senate will not be less generous than
the House of Representatives, I trust that we shall take the bill as
it comes from the House, voting down the amendments reported by our
Committee.

I hear it said by the Senator from Michigan [Mr. FERRY] that the
bill will be a bad precedent; and the same argument is repeated,
with variety of illustration, by my excellent friend the Senator
from Vermont [Mr. MORRILL]. Sir, is it not too late to correct the
precedent? You already have the case of Portland and the case of
Chicago; I am sorry that you must now add the case of Boston. Call it
a bad precedent. It can only be applicable in a parallel case, and I
do not believe such cases can occur often. The fire-fiend latterly
has been very busy in our land; but he cannot always be so; at least
I have a well-founded trust that by proper precaution, if not also
by better fortune, we shall escape from his visitations. I put aside,
therefore, the argument that this is a bad precedent. It can be called
into activity only in a similar case; and when a similar case occurs, I
am ready for its application. Let any other metropolis sit like Boston
in ashes, and I hope there will be no hesitation in extending to it a
friendly hand.

It is not fair to call up the smaller losses that may occur in smaller
places, for the simple reason that such losses are not within the reach
of Congress by any ordinary exercise of its powers. It is only where
the loss is great, as in the familiar cases before us, that there
is opportunity for Congress. An ancient poet says: “Nor should the
Divinity intervene, unless the occasion be worthy.”[226] I would say,
Nor should Congress interfere, unless the case be such as to justify
the exercise of extraordinary powers. Obviously such an occasion does
not occur except where the scale of loss is great.

Then, again, the Senator from Michigan reminded us of the exception of
lumber in the bill for the relief of Chicago; but he vindicated that
exception by facts which do not occur in the present case. He said,
as we all know, that Michigan was also a sufferer at that calamitous
moment; and he did not think it right, therefore, that the peculiar
interests of his State should be called to contribute even to the great
losses of Chicago. I do not say that the Senator was not entirely
right in that position. Certainly the case as presented by him is
entirely reasonable. Had I had the honor to represent Michigan at the
time, I know not that I should have acted otherwise than he did. But I
call attention to the point, as presented by him, that no such case
exists now. Michigan is not a sufferer; Maine is not a sufferer; nor
is any part of our country which contributes timber to our business a
sufferer. Therefore is there no reason for introducing this exception.
The reason failing, the exception should fail also. I hope, therefore,
that the Senate will keep the bill in that respect precisely as it came
from the House.

Then my friend from Vermont suggests that this bill is practically
an invitation to the people of Boston to go to Europe and elsewhere
in order to find workmen. He seemed frightened at the possibility. I
think my friend sees too often the question of protection to American
industry, and makes himself too unhappy on this account. I hope that
this bill will be considered without any question of protection. Let
the people of Boston go where they can buy cheapest in order to meet
their great calamity; and if it be to their neighbor British provinces,
I hope my friend from Vermont will not interfere to prevent it.

THE LATE HON. GARRETT DAVIS, SENATOR OF KENTUCKY.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE ON HIS DEATH, DECEMBER 18, 1872.

MR. PRESIDENT,--I was a member of the Senate, when, in 1861, our
departed Senator entered it; and I was to the end the daily witness
of his laborious service. Standing now at his funeral, it is easy to
forget the differences between us and remember those things in which he
was an example to all.

Death has its companionship. In its recent autumn harvest were Garrett
Davis, William H. Seward, and Horace Greeley. Seward was the precise
contemporary of Davis, each beginning life with the century and dying
within a few days of each other. Always alike in constancy of labor,
they were for the larger part of this period associated in political
sentiment as active members of the old Whig party. But the terrible
question of Slavery rose to divide them. How completely they were on
opposite sides I need not say. Horace Greeley was ten years the junior,
but he was the colleague and peer of Garrett Davis in devotion to Henry
Clay. In the whole country, among all whose enthusiastic support he
aroused, there was no one who upheld the Kentucky statesman with more
chivalrous devotion than these two. Here they were alike, and in the
record of life this signal fidelity cannot be forgotten. It was to the
honor of Henry Clay that he inspired this sentiment in such men, and it
was to their honor that they maintained it so truly. Kindred to truth
is fidelity.

At his death, Garrett Davis was our Congressional senior, having
entered the other House as early as 1839, after previous service of
six years in the Legislature of Kentucky. For eight years he sat as
Representative, and then, after an interval of thirteen years, he
was for nearly twelve years Senator. During this long period he was
conspicuous before the country, dwelling constantly in the public eye.
How well he stood the gaze, whether of friend or foe, belongs to his
good name.

All who knew him in the Senate will bear witness to his wonderful
industry, his perfect probity, and the personal purity of his life.
No differences of opinion can obscure the fame of these qualities, or
keep them from being a delight to his friends and an example to his
country. Nor can any of us forget how, amid peculiar trials, he was
courageous in devotion to the National Union. No pressure, no appeal,
no temptation, could sway him in this patriotic allegiance. That
fidelity which belonged to his nature shone here as elsewhere. He was
no holiday Senator, cultivating pleasure rather than duty, and he was
above all suspicion in personal conduct. Calumny could not reach him.
Nothing is so fierce and unreasoning as the enmities engendered by
political antagonists; but even these never questioned that he was at
all times incorruptible and pure. Let this be spoken in his honor; let
it be written on his monument. Nor can the State that gave him to the
national service and trusted him so long fail to remember with pride
that he was always an honest man.

With this completeness of integrity there was a certain wild
independence and intensity of nature which made him unaccommodating and
irrepressible. Faithful, constant, devoted, indefatigable, implacable,
he knew not how to capitulate. Dr. Johnson, who liked “a good
hater,”[227] would have welcomed him into this questionable fellowship.
Here I cannot doubt. Better far the opposite character, and even the
errors that may come from it. Kindred to hate is prejudice, which was
too often active in him, seeming at times, especially where we differed
from him, to take the place of reason. On nothing was this so marked
as Slavery. Here his convictions were undisguised; nor did they yield
to argument or the logic of events. How much of valuable time, learned
research, and intellectual effort he bestowed in support of this dying
cause, the chronicles of the Senate attest. How often have we listened
with pain to this advocacy, regretting deeply that the gifts he
possessed, and especially his sterling character, were enlisted where
our sympathies could not go! And yet I cannot doubt that others would
testify, as I now do, that never on these occasions, when the soul
was tried in its depths, did any fail to recognize the simplicity and
integrity of his nature. Had he been less honest, I should have felt
his speeches less. Happily, that great controversy is ended; nor do I
say anything but the strict truth, when I add that now we bury him who
spoke last for Slavery.

Time is teacher and reconciler; nor is it easy for any candid nature
to preserve a constant austerity of judgment toward persons. As
evening approaches, the meridian heats lose their intensity. While
abiding firmly in the truth as we saw it, there may be charity and
consideration for those who did not see it as we saw it. A French
statesman, yet living, whose name is indissolubly connected with the
highest literature, as well as with some of the most important events
of his age, teaches how with the passage of life the judgment is
softened toward others. “The more,” says M. Guizot, “I have penetrated
into an understanding and experience of things, of men, and of myself,
the more I have perceived at the same time my general convictions
strengthen and my personal impressions become calm and mild. Equity,
I will not say toleration for the faith of others, in religion or
politics, has come to take place and grow by the side of tranquillity
in my own faith. It is youth, with its natural ignorance and passionate
prejudices, which renders us exclusive and biting in our judgments of
others. In proportion as I quit myself, and as time sweeps me far from
our combats, I enter without difficulty into a serene and pleasant
appreciation of ideas and sentiments which do not belong to me.” Even
if not adopting these words completely, all will confess their beauty.

Here let me be frank. Nothing could make any speech for Slavery
tolerable to me; but when I think how much opinions are determined by
the influences about us, so that a change of birth and education might
have made the Abolitionist a partisan of Slavery and the partisan of
Slavery an Abolitionist, I feel, that, while always unrelenting toward
the wrong, we cannot be insensible to individual merits. In this
spirit I offer a sincere tribute to a departed Senator, who, amid the
perturbations of the times, trod his way with independent step, and won
even from opponents the palm of character.

EQUALITY IN CIVIL RIGHTS.

LETTER TO THE COMMITTEE OF ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE CELEBRATION OF THE
ANNIVERSARY OF EMANCIPATION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, APRIL 16, 1873.

The long procession stopped before Mr. Sumner’s house, where one of
the bands played “Auld Lang Syne.” Arriving in front of the City
Hall of Washington, they were addressed by R. T. Greene, Esq., and
also by Hon. Frederick Douglass. Letters were read from President
Grant, Senators Anthony, Pratt, and Sumner, Hon.’s Horace Maynard,
B. F. Butler, A. G. Riddle, S. J. Bowen, N. G. Ordway, and A. M.
Clapp. Mr. Sumner’s letter was as follows:--

WASHINGTON, April 16, 1873.

DEAR SIR,--I regret that it is not in my power to be with you
according to the invitation with which you have honored me. This is a
day whose associations are as precious to me as to you.

Emancipation in the national capital was the experiment which
prepared the way for Emancipation everywhere throughout the country.
It was the beginning of the great end.

Here, as in other things, you are an example to our colored
fellow-citizens in the States. Your success here will vindicate the
capacity of colored people for citizenship, and your whole race will
be benefited thereby.

Let me speak frankly. Much has been done, but more remains to be
done. The great work is not yet accomplished. Until your equality
in civil rights is assured, the pillar of your citizenship is like
the column in honor of Washington,--unfinished and imperfect. There
is constant talk of finishing that column at great cost of money,
but the first thing to be done is to finish the pillar of your
citizenship. Here I shall gladly work; but I trust that you will all
work likewise, nor be content with anything less than the whole.

Accept my thanks and best wishes, and believe me, dear Sir,

Faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

TO THE CHAIRMAN.

EQUAL RIGHTS OF COLORED FELLOW-CITIZENS IN NORMAL SCHOOLS.

LETTER READ AT A PUBLIC MEETING IN WASHINGTON, JUNE 22, 1873.

A proposition in the Legislature of the District of Columbia,
opening the Normal School without distinction of color, failed
through the vote of a colored member, which was the occasion of
the following letter, written in reply to an inquiry. The letter
was read by the chairman of a public meeting of colored citizens
on the evening of June 30, 1873, who said he had conferred with
distinguished gentlemen, legal and otherwise, regarding the right
of the District Legislature to pass such a bill, and all had stated
that their power was unquestionable. He had addressed a letter to
the Hon. Charles Sumner upon that question, and had received the
following reply:--

WASHINGTON, June 22, 1873.

DEAR SIR,--In reply to your inquiry, I have no hesitation in saying
that in my judgment the right of the District Legislature to provide
a normal school where there shall be no distinction of color is
beyond doubt. To call it in question is simply ridiculous.

Having the right, the duty of the Legislature is clear as sunshine.
It must open the school to all, without distinction of color. Should
any persons be shut out from this right on the wretched apology of
color, I trust they will make their indignation felt by the guilty
authors of the outrage.

I write plainly, because the time has come for those who love justice
to speak out. Too long have colored fellow-citizens been deprived of
their rights; they must insist upon them.

Faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

THE PRESIDENT OF HAYTI AND MR. SUMNER.

LETTER IN REPLY TO ONE FROM THE FORMER, JULY 4, 1873.

The following is a translation of the Haytian President’s letter:--

REPUBLIC OF HAYTI, PORT-AU-PRINCE,
September 24, 1872.

Sixty-Ninth Year of Independence.

HONORABLE SENATOR,--I eagerly seize the good opportunity
offered me by the departure of our Minister, Citizen S.
Preston, to pray you to receive the testimony of my high
consideration, which does not cease to grow, by reason of the
eminent services which you render daily to the noble cause of
an oppressed people.

I should consider myself as failing in one of my most imperious
duties, if I did not express to you the sentiments of gratitude
which your name awakens in the breast of every one belonging to
the African race.

In assuming the defence of the rights of this people, guided by
the most generous sentiments of your rich nature, by a sincere
love of justice, you have acquired an immortal title to the
gratitude of all the descendants of the African race.

Please to receive this feeble expression of my high esteem for
the noble character of an illustrious citizen, and believe in
the depth of sentiment with which I declare myself, Honorable
Senator,

Your devoted friend,

NISAGE SAGET.

MR. SUMNER’S REPLY.

WASHINGTON, July 4, 1873.

MR. PRESIDENT,--I cannot, at this late day, acknowledge the letter
with which you have honored me, without explaining the reason of my
delay.

Owing to absence in Europe, where I had gone for my health, I did not
receive your valuable communication until some time in the winter,
when it was put into my hands by your excellent Minister. Continuing
feeble in health, I reluctantly postponed this acknowledgment. I now
take advantage of convalescence to do, thus tardily, what my feelings
prompted at an earlier day.

Please, Sir, accept my thanks for your generous appreciation of what
I have done, and your kindness in letting me know it under your own
hand. But I beg you to understand that I do not deserve the praise
with which you honor me. In advocating the cause of an oppressed
people I have only acted according to my conscience. I could not have
done otherwise; and now my only regret is that I have done so little.
I wish I had done more.

In the history of mankind the crime against the African race will
stand forth in terrible eminence,--always observed, and never
forgotten. Just in proportion as civilization prevails will this
enormous wrong be apparent in its true character; and men will read
with astonishment how human beings, guilty only of being black,
were sold into slavery, and then (such was the continuing injustice
towards this unhappy people) how, when slavery ceased, they were
still treated with indignity by persons whose lordly pretensions were
founded on the skin only. As these things are seen in increasing
light, they will be condemned in no uncertain words; nor will the
denial of equal rights, on account of color, escape the judgment
awarded to slavery itself. Human conduct on this question is a
measure of character. Where the African race is enslaved or degraded,
where it is exposed to any indignity or shut out from that equality
which is a primal right to humanity, there civilization is still
feeble.

To the certain triumph of civilization I look with constant hope. It
is sure to come; and one sign of its arrival will be that prevailing
sentiment which recognizes the perpetual obligations of equal justice
to all, and the duty to repair past wrongs by compensations in the
future.

In the great debt of the whites to the blacks there is a bank from
which, for generations to come, the latter can draw.

Accept, Mr. President, the expression of my ardent hope for the
peace, prosperity, and happiness of the Republic of Hayti, and allow
me to subscribe myself with true regard,

Your faithful friend,

CHARLES SUMNER.

TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF HAYTI.

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

LETTER TO HENRY RICHARD, M. P., ON THE VOTE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
AGREEING TO HIS MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS TO THE QUEEN, PRAYING
COMMUNICATION WITH FOREIGN POWERS WITH A VIEW TO A GENERAL AND
PERMANENT SYSTEM OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION, JULY 10, 1873.

UNITED STATES SENATE CHAMBER, WASHINGTON,
July 10, 1873.

MY DEAR SIR,--Few events have given me more pleasure than the vote on
your motion. I thank you for making the motion; and I thank you also
for not yielding to Mr. Gladstone’s request to withdraw it. You were
in the very position of Buxton on his motion against Slavery. He,
too, insisted upon a division; and that vote led to Emancipation. May
you have equal success!

I anticipate much from this vote. It will draw attention on the
Continent, which the facts and figures of your speech will confirm.

I find in your speech grand compensation for the long postponement to
which you have been constrained. It marks an epoch in a great cause.
I know you will not rest. But this speech alone, with the signal
result, will make your Parliamentary life historic. Surely Mr.
Gladstone acted under some imagined exigency of politics. He cannot,
in his soul, differ from you. Honoring him much, I regret that he has
allowed himself to appear on the wrong side. What fame so great as
his, if he would devote the just influence of his lofty position to
securing for nations the inappreciable benefits of a tribunal for the
settlement of their differences!

How absurd to call your motion Utopian, if by this word is meant that
it is not practical. There is no question so supremely practical;
for it concerns not merely one nation, but every nation; and even
its discussion promises to diminish the terrible chances of war. Its
triumph would be the greatest reform of history. And I doubt not that
this day is near.

Accept my thanks and congratulations, and believe me, my dear Sir,

Sincerely yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

HENRY RICHARD, ESQ., M.P., LONDON.

A COMMON-SCHOOL SYSTEM IRRESPECTIVE OF COLOR.

LETTER TO THE COLORED CITIZENS OF WASHINGTON, JULY 29, 1873.

WASHINGTON, July 29, 1873.

GENTLEMEN,--I am honored by your communication of July 26th, in
which, after congratulating me upon returning health, and expressing
your sincere hopes that I may resume my labors in the Senate, there
to take up again the cause of Equal Rights, you mention that the
colored citizens of Washington are now engaged in agitating what you
properly call “a common-school system for all children.”

I desire to thank you for the good-will to myself which your
communication exhibits, and for your hopes that I may again in the
Senate take up the cause of Equal Rights. Health itself is valuable
only as it enables us to perform the duties of life, and I know no
present duty more commanding than that to which you refer.

I confess a true pleasure in learning that the colored people are
at last rising to take the good cause into their own hands, because
through them its triumph is certain. But they must be in earnest.
They must insist and labor, then labor and insist again. Only in
this way can indifference, which is worse even than the stubbornness
of opposition, be overcome. The open foe can be met. It is hard to
deal with that dulness which feels no throb at the thought of opening
to all complete equality in the pursuit of happiness.

Permit me to remind you, Gentlemen, that, living at the national
capital, you have a peculiar responsibility. In the warfare for
Equal Rights you are the advance guard, sometimes the forlorn hope.
You are animated to move forward, not only for your own immediate
good, but because through you the whole colored population of the
country will be benefited. What is secured for you will be secured
for all,--while, if you fail, there is small hope elsewhere. Do not
forget--and let this thought arouse to increased exertion--that your
triumph will redound to the good of all.

The District of Columbia is the place where all the great reforms
born of the war have begun. It is the experimental garden and nursery
where all the generous plants have been tried. Emancipation, colored
suffrage, the right of colored persons to testify, and the right to
ride in the street-cars,--all these began here, and I remember well
how they were all encountered.

On the abolition of Slavery we were solemnly warned that riot,
confusion, and chaos would ensue. Emancipation took place, and not a
voice or sound was heard except of peace and gladness. I was soberly
assured by eminent politicians, that if colored persons were allowed
to vote there would be massacre at the polls. Then, again, colored
testimony was deprecated,--while it was insisted that the street-cars
would be ruined, if opened to colored persons. But all these changes,
demanded by simple justice, have been in every way beneficent.
Nobody would reverse them now. Who would establish Slavery again? Who
would drive the colored citizen from the polls? Who would exclude
him from the court-room? Who would shut him from the street-cars?
And now the old objections are revived, and made to do service
again, in order to defeat the effort for common schools,--being
schools founded on the very principle of Equal Rights recognized in
the elective franchise, in the court-room, and in the street-car.
If this principle is just for all the latter,--and nobody says the
contrary now,--why hesitate to apply it in education? How often we
are enjoined to train the child in the way he should go! Why, then,
compel him in those tender years to bear the ban of exclusion? Why,
at that early period, when impressions are received for life, impose
upon him the badge of inferiority? He is to be a man; therefore he
must be trained to that self-respect without which there can be no
true manhood. But this can be only by removing all ban of exclusion,
and every badge of inferiority from color.

As the old objections are revived, so again do I present the great
truth announced by our fathers in the Declaration of Independence,
“that all men are created equal.” Admitting this principle as a
rule of conduct, the separation of children in the public schools
on account of color is absolutely indefensible. In abolishing it we
simply bring our schools into conformity with the requirements of the
Declaration.

To the objection that this change will injure the schools, I reply
that this is contrary to experience in other places, where the
commingling of children according to the genius of republican
institutions has been found excellent in influence. And I further
reply by insisting now, as I always do, upon that justice to an
oppressed race which has been too long delayed, and which never fails
to be a well-spring of strength and happiness, blessing all who help
it and all who receive it.

Feeling as I do on this question, you will understand that I cannot
see without regret any opportunity neglected of advancing the cause,
especially among colored fellow-citizens. On this they should be a
unit. Wherever the question presents itself, whether in Congress, or
the Legislative Chambers of the District, or the popular assembly,
there should be a solid vote against every discrimination on account
of color. It is easy for lawyers and politicians to find excuses
according to their desires; but no fine-spun theory or technicality
should be allowed to prevail against the commanding principle.

Accept my best wishes, and believe me, Gentlemen,

Your faithful friend,

CHARLES SUMNER.

HENRY PIPER, Chairman.

BOSTON: ITS PROPER BOUNDARIES.

LETTER TO HON. G. W. WARREN, OF CHARLESTOWN, ON THE ANNEXION TO BOSTON
OF THE SUBURBAN TOWNS, OCTOBER 4, 1873.

COOLIDGE HOUSE, October 4, 1873.

DEAR MR. WARREN,--I should be glad to meet your friends in a
conference on the question, How Boston shall be rounded so as
to be in reality itself. I cannot meet with you, but I unite in
your purpose, as I understand it, and especially with regard to
Charlestown.

I doubt if the future Boston will be content until it holds and
possesses all the territory which hugs the harbor bearing its name,
so that in Boston harbor nobody shall land except in Boston.

Evidently Boston should contain all Bostonians, which it does not
now. I know no better way of accomplishing this result than by
widening the circle of its jurisdiction.

But there is a stronger reason. Every capital is a natural focus
of life, politically, socially, and commercially; and every person
living in this natural focus properly belongs to the capital. So it
is with London, Paris, and Vienna,--each of which is composed of
suburbs and faubourgs grouped about the original city; and so in
reality it is with Boston,--for the places about the city, though
called by different names, are parts of the same unity, which needs
nothing now but a common name.

A capital may be artificial or natural. The artificial body is
that formed by original unchangeable boundaries. The natural body
is that combination, cluster, or expansion which changes with the
developments of time and to meet the growing exigencies.

With these views, I find the various processes of annexion only a
natural manifestation, to be encouraged always, and to be welcomed
under proper conditions of population and public opinion. I say
“annexion” rather than “annexation.” Where a word is so much used,
better save a syllable,--especially as the shorter is the better.

Ever sincerely yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

This letter appeared just previously to the vote on the
annexion to Boston of Charlestown, West Roxbury, Brighton, and
Brookline,--which was taken on the first Tuesday of October, 1873,
with a favorable result as to the first three municipalities.

YELLOW FEVER AT MEMPHIS AND SHREVEPORT: AID FOR THE SUFFERERS.

REMARKS BEFORE THE BOARD OF TRADE AT BOSTON, OCTOBER 24, 1873.

At a meeting in aid of the sufferers by yellow fever in Memphis
(Tennessee) and Shreveport (Louisiana), held at the rooms of the
Board of Trade in Boston, at which the Mayor, Hon. Henry L. Pierce,
presided, after remarks by Mr. Pierce and Hon. Alexander H. Rice,
Mr. Sumner said:--

MR. MAYOR,--I have come less for speech than to show by my presence
here the sincere interest I feel in the present meeting. For what can I
say to prompt the generosity of Boston merchants? They understand this
call, and their hearts have already answered it.

It is hard to hear of suffering anywhere without longing to relieve
it. But happily now all impediment of distance is removed; and such
are the facilities of communication that before the set of sun your
contributions will brighten the faces of those distant sufferers. Do
not think of distance. It is nothing. If Boston should be startled by
hearing to-day that pestilence had appeared in one of our new-found
possessions, as in Charlestown,--or even in Brookline, which will not
be annexed,--we should feel the ties of neighborhood. But Memphis
and Shreveport are neighbors by telegraph and steam, and the grander
ties of a common country, which the ancient Roman orator called the
“great charity comprehending all.”[228] Besides, there is that other
more touching neighborhood which springs from suffering,--for I do not
forget the divine hymn which teaches that

“Our neighbor is the suffering man,
Though at the farthest pole.”[229]

In these latter days, my friends, distress has come less from
pestilence than from conflagration. The Fire Fiend has been more active
than the other demon, and property has suffered more than life. Such
are the favoring conditions of climate and the general security of
health in our country, that we are rarely disturbed by contagion. But
it has come at last with the “reaper whose name is Death.”

To arrest this contagion, to help those exposed to its ravages, we
perform a simple duty, as when we direct water upon the bursting
blaze. Pestilence is a conflagration, and human life is the sacrifice.
In this illustration I bring home to Boston merchants the urgency of
the present call. Too well you know the terrible scene, when your
magnificent and well-filled warehouses, borrowed in style and form from
Venetian palaces, were seized and devoured by the flames. But other
flames, not less vindictive, are now seizing and devouring fellow-men,
our fellow-countrymen, in fair and beautiful places where all smiles
but the benefactor Health. Let us do what we can to help the benefactor
resume his sway.

At the close of Mr. Sumner’s remarks, measures were taken for the
immediate receiving of subscriptions.

THE CASE OF THE VIRGINIUS.

LETTER TO THE CUBAN MASS MEETING IN NEW YORK, NOVEMBER 15, 1873.

The Virginius, a steamer sailing from New York under American
colors, was seized on her way from Jamaica to Cuba by a Spanish
cruiser, the Tornado, on the ground that she was carrying men
and munitions of war to the Cuban insurgents, and a large number
of those on board were summarily executed by order of the
Spanish authorities in that island. The intelligence caused much
excitement, especially in the City of New York, which was the
centre of Cuban interests in this country. An indignation meeting
was held in that City, which was countenanced by persons of high
character and position, and addressed by Hon. William M. Evarts and
others in speeches of great intensity. Mr. Sumner, taking a view of
the case which the sober second thought of the people approved, but
which was not in accord with the passions of the hour, answered an
invitation to attend the meeting by the following letter:--

BOSTON, November 15, 1873.

GENTLEMEN,--It is not in my power to be with you at your meeting to
ask for justice in Cuba.

Allow me to add, that, longing for immediate Emancipation in this
neighboring island, where Slavery still shows its infamous front, and
always insisting that delay is contrary to justice, I do not think
it practicable at this moment, on existing evidence, to determine
all our duties in the recent case where civilization has received a
shock.

It is very easy to see that no indignation at dreadful
butchery--inconsistent with the spirit of the age, but unhappily
aroused by an illicit filibustering expedition from our own shores,
kindred to that of the Alabama, for which England has been justly
condemned in damages--can make us forget that we are dealing with the
Spanish nation, struggling under terrible difficulties to become a
sister Republic, and therefore deserving from us present forbearance
and candor. Nor can we forget the noble President, whose eloquent
voice, pleading for humanity and invoking our example, has so often
charmed the world. The Spanish Republic and Emilio Castelar do not
deserve the menace of war from us.

If watchwords are needed now, let them be: Immediate Emancipation
and Justice in Cuba!--Success to the Spanish Republic!--Honor and
Gratitude to Emilio Castelar! and Peace between our two Nations!
Bearing these in mind, there will be no occasion for the belligerent
preparations of the last few days, adding to our present burdensome
expenditures several millions of dollars, and creating a war fever to
interfere with the general health of the political body.

I am, Gentlemen,

Your faithful servant,

CHARLES SUMNER.

TO THE COMMITTEE.

THE SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL-RIGHTS BILL AGAIN: IMMEDIATE ACTION URGED.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, DECEMBER 2, 1873.

MR. PRESIDENT,--If the Senate has no business before it, I think it
cannot do better than to proceed to the consideration of Senate bill
No. 1, the Bill Supplementary to the Civil-Rights Act.[230] It is a
well-known bill, and I do not see how it will require any debate. I
think its reading will be enough. Its terms are expressive; the bill
proves itself. I move that the Senate proceed to its consideration.

Mr. Ferry, of Connecticut, objecting, that on the introduction of
this bill, the day before, Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, who was not
now in his seat, had expressed an earnest desire that it should be
referred to a committee, a feeling in which he himself sympathized,
“especially because the constitutional question which was prominent
in the former debate on it had been submitted to the consideration
of the Supreme Court of the United States, and its decision
promulgated since the Senate last met,”--

* * * * *

Mr. Sumner replied:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--This bill has been before a committee. What the
committee did in the way of consideration I know not; I had not the
honor of being a member of it. But afterward, as all know, this bill
was completely, most thoroughly, considered and canvassed in this
Chamber. Never in the history of our legislation was any bill more
considered; never has any bill been more minutely matured. Why, then,
refer it to a committee? I do not say that Senators propose delay, but
it is obvious that such a reference will cause delay.

Now, Sir, I am against delay in the enactment of this measure. It
should pass promptly. It is a great act of justice, to which, as I
understand, the political parties of the country, in solemn convention,
are pledged. Why, then, wait? Why charge a committee with this burden?
Why continue on the country the burden of the injustice which this bill
proposes to relieve?

We are reminded of a recent decision of the Supreme Court. I have yet
to learn how that decision has any practical bearing on the present
bill. I do not believe that it touches it. Why, then, interpose this
delay? Why not go forward promptly, swiftly, according to the merits of
this measure, and give it, like a benediction, to the land? Here are
our colored fellow-citizens, many millions strong, all of whom have
votes, and all unite in asking it. Your table has literally groaned
under petitions presented from month to month, from year to year;
and unless the bill is speedily passed, I predict that your table
will groan again with similar petitions, and justly,--for our colored
fellow-citizens ought to exercise that great right of petition in favor
of this measure until it is finally adopted.

I am sorry that the suggestion has been made. I had hoped that there
would be nothing but welcome and consideration for a measure so truly
beneficent, and which is absolutely needed to crown and complete the
great work of Reconstruction.

Mr. Ferry reiterating his objections, with the remark that this
bill had “in its principle been considered by the Supreme Court
of the United States,” and its constitutionality “substantially
decided against,” and to Mr. Sumner’s inquiry, “When, and on what
occasion?” responding,--

“In the New Orleans Slaughter-house cases; and I have read in
the newspapers of the country during the recent vacation what
purported to be the opinion of the Supreme Court; and if the
paper which I read was the opinion of the Supreme Court, that
court, by a majority, holds in principle that the bill which
the Senator has presented is a violation of the Constitution of
the United States,”--

Mr. Sumner rejoined:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--I would not fail in any courtesy to any Senator,
especially in any courtesy to the Senator from Vermont, for whom I have
all kindness and honor, but I think Senators will agree that nothing
passed yesterday between us by which I am in any way constrained, so
that I may not ask the Senate to proceed at once with this bill. If I
could see the question as my friend from Connecticut sees it, he may
be assured that I should not press the bill. I do not see it so; but
I do see that this bill is now on our table numbered _One_: it is the
first bill of the Calendar. I see also that at this time the Senate has
no business before it; and should I not fail in duty, if I did not ask
the Senate to proceed during this unoccupied time with a bill which I
regard as so important, and which is actually the first in order, being
foremost among all bills?

But my friend from Connecticut reminds me of a recent decision of
the Supreme Court. For that Court I have great respect. Personal and
professional familiarity with the Court, and study of its judgments
running now for much more than a generation, incline me always to
deference when its decisions are mentioned; but if I understood my
friend, he relies upon a newspaper report. Sir, I have read the
judgment of that Court, communicated to me by one of its members in
an official copy; and I have no hesitation in saying that the Senator
is entirely mistaken, if he supposes that by a hair’s breadth it
interferes with the constitutionality of the bill which I now move.

Sir, there is no such lion in our path. It exists only in the
imagination of my friend,--or in the desire, which he has so often
manifested, to interfere with the adoption of this measure. But
the Senator is mistaken if he supposes that I charge upon him any
indifference to Human Rights. Never, in any debate, has any word fallen
from me which that Senator can so misinterpret. I know too well his
heart, his excellent and abounding nature, his New-England home, to
attribute to him any such indifference. But I do know full well, for
the Senator has often declared it, that he acts under interpretations
of the Constitution which it seems to me belong to the period anterior
to the war rather than since the war. It seems to me--I may be
mistaken, but I cannot help saying it--that the Senator has not yet
recognized that greatest of all victories by which a new interpretation
is fixed upon the National Constitution, so that hereafter all its
sentences, all its phrases, all its words, shall be interpreted broadly
and emphatically for Human Rights. How often have I been obliged to say
this! But the Senator forgets that victory. There is his error. Most
sincerely, most ardently, do I trust that the Senate will never forget
it; I hope we shall duly act upon it, and celebrate it in our acts.

Sir, I have been betrayed into these remarks simply by way of answer
to what has been said by my friend. I had hoped that this bill might
be proceeded with without debate. I had trusted that this benign
measure was so clear and refulgent with justice that no Senator would
rise in his place to oppose it. I had indulged the longing that those
especially in favor of amnesty for all would adopt that other greater
and more comprehensive principle of justice for all. Strange, Sir,
that the sensibilities of so many are aroused in favor of amnesty,
and yet those same Senators are so dull when the rights of men are
presented! I, Sir, am anxious to see universal amnesty; but with it
must be asserted also universal justice. Our colored fellow-citizens
must be admitted to complete equality before the law. In other words,
everywhere, in everything regulated by law, they must be equal with
all their fellow-citizens. There is the simple principle on which
this bill stands. Who can impugn it? Who can throw upon it the shadow
of question? Sir, if the Constitution of the United States does
not sanction a bill like this, then forthwith should we proceed to
amend that Constitution, and make it more worthy of our regard. Much
as has been done, this bill must also be added to the trophies of
Congressional action; this bill must be enumerated among the great
results of our recent legislation. Terrible war will then have been a
beneficent parent.

I hope, Sir, there can be no question on the subject.

The motion was not agreed to.

OUR PILGRIM FOREFATHERS.

SPEECH AT THE DINNER OF THE NEW-ENGLAND SOCIETY IN NEW YORK, DECEMBER
22, 1873.

After the customary toasts, _The Day we celebrate_, and _The
President of the United States_, the President of the Society, Mr.
Elliot C. Cowdin, in announcing the _Third Regular Toast_, said,--

“I give you, Gentlemen, _The Senate of the United States_.

“We are happy to greet, on this occasion, the senior in
consecutive service, and the most eminent member of the Senate,
whose early, varied, and distinguished services in the cause
of Freedom have made his name a household word throughout the
world,--the Honorable Charles Sumner.”

“On rising,” says the official report, “Mr. Sumner was received
with great cheering,--the members of the Society standing, waving
handkerchiefs, and in other ways expressing lively satisfaction.”

Mr. Sumner responded:--

MR. PRESIDENT AND BROTHERS OF NEW ENGLAND:--

For the first time in my life, I have the good fortune to enjoy this
famous anniversary festival. Though often honored by your most tempting
invitation, and longing to celebrate the day in this goodly company,
of which all have heard so much, I could never excuse myself from
duties in another place. If now I yield to well-known attractions,
and journey from Washington for my first holiday during a protracted
public service, it is because all was enhanced by the appeal of your
excellent President, to whom I am bound by the friendship of many
years in Boston, New York, and in a foreign land. (_Applause._) It is
much to be a brother of New England, but it is more to be a friend
(_applause_); and this tie I have pleasure in confessing to-night.

It is with much doubt and humility that I venture to answer for the
Senate of the United States, and I believe the least I say on this head
will be the most prudent. (_Laughter._) But I shall be entirely safe
in expressing my doubt if there is a single Senator who would not be
glad of a seat at this generous banquet. What is the Senate? It is a
component part of the National Government. But we celebrate to-day more
than any component part of any government. We celebrate an epoch in
the history of mankind,--not only never to be forgotten, but to grow
in grandeur as the world appreciates the elements of true greatness.
Of mankind, I say: for the landing on Plymouth Rock, on the 22d of
December, 1620, marks the origin of a new order of ages, by which the
whole human family will be elevated. Then and there was the great
beginning.

Throughout all time, from the dawn of history, men have swarmed to
found new homes in distant lands. The Tyrians, skirting Northern
Africa, stopped at Carthage; Carthaginians dotted Spain, and even the
distant coasts of Britain and Ireland; Greeks gemmed Italy and Sicily
with Art-loving settlements; Rome carried multitudinous colonies with
her conquering eagles. Saxons, Danes, and Normans violently mingled
with the original Britons. And in more modern times Venice, Genoa,
Portugal, Spain, France, and England, all sent forth emigrants to
people foreign shores. But in these various expeditions trade or war
was the impelling motive. Too often commerce and conquest moved hand in
hand, and the colony was incarnadined with blood.

On the day we celebrate, the sun for the first time in his course
looked down upon a different scene, begun and continued under a
different inspiration. A few conscientious Englishmen, in obedience
to the monitor within, and that they might be free to worship God
according to their own sense of duty, set sail for the unknown wilds
of the North American continent. After a voyage of sixty-four days in
the ship Mayflower, with Liberty at the prow and Conscience at the
helm, (_applause_,) they sighted the white sand-banks of Cape Cod, and
soon thereafter in the small cabin framed that brief compact, forever
memorable, which is the first written constitution of government in
human history, and the very corner-stone of the American Republic; and
then these Pilgrims landed.

This compact was not only foremost in time, it was also august in
character, and worthy of perpetual example. Never before had the object
of the “civil body politic” been announced as “to enact, constitute,
and frame such _just and equal laws_, ordinances, acts, constitutions,
and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and
convenient for the general good of the Colony.”[231] How lofty! how
true! Undoubtedly these were the grandest words of government, with the
largest promise, of any at that time uttered.

If more were needed to illustrate the new epoch, it would be found in
the parting words of the venerable pastor, John Robinson, addressed
to the Pilgrims, as they were about to sail from Delft-Haven,--words
often quoted, yet never enough. How sweetly and beautifully he says:
“And if God should reveal anything to you by any other instrument of
His, be as ready to receive it as ever you were to receive any truth
by my ministry; for I am very confident the Lord hath more truth and
light yet to break forth out of His Holy Word.” And then how justly the
good preacher rebukes those who close their souls to truth! “As, for
example, the Lutherans, they cannot be drawn to go beyond what Luther
saw,--for, whatever part of God’s will He hath further imparted and
revealed to Calvin, they will rather die than embrace it; and so also
you see the Calvinists, they stick where he left them,--a misery much
to be lamented; for, though they were precious shining lights in their
times, yet God had not revealed His whole will to them.”[232] Beyond
the merited rebuke, here is a plain recognition of the law of Human
Progress, little discerned at the time, which teaches the sure advance
of the Human Family, and opens the vista of the ever-broadening,
never-ending future on earth.

Our Pilgrims were few and poor. The whole outfit of this historic
voyage, including £1,700 of trading-stock, was only £2,400;[233]
and how little was required for their succor appears in the
experience of the soldier Captain Miles Standish, who, being sent
to England for assistance,--not military, but financial (God save
the mark!),--succeeded in borrowing (how much do you suppose?) £150
sterling. (_Laughter._) Something in the way of help; and the historian
adds, “though at fifty per cent” interest.[234] So much for a valiant
soldier on a financial expedition. (_Laughter, in which General Sherman
and the company joined._) A later agent, Allerton, was able to borrow
for the Colony £200 at a reduced interest of thirty per cent.[235]
Plainly, the money-sharks of our day may trace an undoubted pedigree
to these London merchants. (_Laughter._) But I know not if any son of
New England, oppressed by exorbitant interest, will be consoled by the
thought that the Pilgrims paid the same.

And yet this small people,--so obscure and outcast in condition,--so
slender in numbers and in means,--so entirely unknown to the proud and
great,--so absolutely without name in contemporary records,--whose
departure from the Old World took little more than the breath of
their bodies,--are now illustrious beyond the lot of men; and the
Mayflower is immortal beyond the Grecian Argo, or the stately ship
of any victorious admiral. Though this was little foreseen in their
day, it is plain now how it has come to pass. The highest greatness,
surviving time and storm, is that which proceeds from the soul of
man. (_Applause._) Monarchs and cabinets, generals and admirals, with
the pomp of courts and the circumstance of war, in the gradual lapse
of time disappear from sight; but the pioneers of Truth, though poor
and lowly, especially those whose example elevates human nature and
teaches the rights of man, so that Government of the people, by the
people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth (_great
applause_),--such harbingers can never be forgotten, and their renown
spreads coëxtensive with the cause they served.

I know not if any whom I now have the honor of addressing have thought
to recall the great in rank and power filling the gaze of the world as
the Mayflower with her company fared forth on their venturous voyage.
The foolish James was yet on the English throne, glorying that he
had “soundly peppered off the Puritans.”[236] The morose Louis the
Thirteenth, through whom Richelieu ruled, was King of France. The
imbecile Philip the Third swayed Spain and the Indies. The persecuting
Ferdinand the Second, tormentor of Protestants, was Emperor of Germany.
Paul the Fifth, of the House of Borghese, was Pope of Rome. In the
same princely company, and all contemporaries, were Christian the
Fourth, King of Denmark, and his son Christian, Prince of Norway;
Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden; Sigismund the Third, King of Poland;
Frederick, King of Bohemia, with his wife, the unhappy Elizabeth of
England, progenitor of the House of Hanover; George William, Margrave
of Brandenburg, and ancestor of the Prussian house that has given an
emperor to Germany; Maximilian, Duke of Bavaria; Maurice, Landgrave
of Hesse; Christian, Duke of Brunswick and Luneburg; John Frederick,
Duke of Würtemberg and Teck; John, Count of Nassau; Henry, Duke of
Lorraine; Albert, Archduke of Austria, and his wife Isabella, Infanta
of Spain, joint rulers of the Low Countries; Maurice, fourth Prince
of Orange, of the House of Nassau; Charles Emanuel, Duke of Savoy,
and ancestor of the King of United Italy; Cosmo de’ Medici, fourth
Grand Duke of Tuscany; Antonio Priuli, ninety-fifth Doge of Venice,
just after the terrible tragedy commemorated on the English stage as
“Venice Preserved”; Bethlen Gabor, Prince of Unitarian Transylvania,
and elected King of Hungary with the countenance of an African; and the
Sultan Osman the Second, of Constantinople, eighteenth ruler of the
Turks.

Such at that time were the crowned sovereigns of Europe, whose names
were mentioned always with awe, and whose countenances are handed down
by Art, so that at this day they are visible to the curious as if they
walked these streets. Mark now the contrast. There was no artist for
our forefathers, nor are their countenances now known to men; but more
than any powerful contemporaries at whose tread the earth trembled
is their memory sacred. (_Applause._) Pope, emperor, king, sultan,
grand-duke, duke, doge, margrave, landgrave, count,--what are they all
by the side of the humble company that landed on Plymouth Rock? Theirs,
indeed, were the ensigns of worldly power; but our Pilgrims had in
themselves that inborn virtue which was more than all else besides, and
their landing was an epoch.

Who in the imposing troop of worldly grandeur is now remembered but
with indifference or contempt? If I except Gustavus Adolphus, it is
because he revealed a superior character. Confront the Mayflower and
the Pilgrims with the potentates who occupied such space in the world.
The former are ascending into the firmament, there to shine forever,
while the latter have been long dropping into the darkness of oblivion,
to be brought forth only to point a moral or to illustrate the fame
of contemporaries whom they regarded not. (_Applause._) Do I err in
supposing this an illustration of the supremacy which belongs to the
triumphs of the moral nature? At first impeded or postponed, they
at last prevail. Theirs is a brightness which, breaking through all
clouds, will shine forth with ever-increasing splendor.

I have often thought, that if I were a preacher, if I had the honor to
occupy the pulpit so grandly filled by my friend near me, (_gracefully
inclining toward Mr. Beecher_,) one of my sermons should be from the
text, “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.”[237] Nor do I know a
better illustration of these words than the influence exerted by our
Pilgrims. That small band, with the lesson of self-sacrifice, of just
and equal laws, of the government of a majority, of unshrinking loyalty
to principle, is now leavening this whole continent, and in the fulness
of time will leaven the world. (_Great applause._) By their example
republican institutions have been commended; and in proportion as we
imitate them will these institutions be assured. (_Applause._)

Liberty, which we so much covet, is not a solitary plant. Always by its
side is Justice. (_Applause._) Yet Justice is nothing but Right applied
to human affairs. Do not forget, I entreat you, that with the highest
morality is the highest liberty. A great poet, in one of his inspired
sonnets, speaking of this priceless possession, has said,

“For who loves that must first be wise and good.”[238]

Therefore do the Pilgrims in their beautiful example teach liberty,
teach republican institutions,--as at an earlier day Socrates and
Plato, in their lessons of wisdom, taught liberty and helped the idea
of the republic. If republican government has thus far failed in any
experiment, as, perhaps, somewhere in Spanish America, it is because
these lessons have been wanting; there have been no Pilgrims to teach
the Moral Law.

Mr. President, with these thoughts, which I imperfectly express, I
confess my obligations to the forefathers of New England, and offer
to them the homage of a grateful heart. But not in thanksgiving only
would I celebrate their memory. I would, if I could, make their example
a universal lesson, and stamp it upon the land. (_Applause._) The
conscience which directed them should be the guide for our public
councils; the just and equal laws which they required should be
ordained by us; and the hospitality to Truth which was their rule
should be ours. Nor would I forget their courage and steadfastness. Had
they turned back or wavered, I know not what would have been the record
of this continent, but I see clearly that a great example would have
been lost. (_Applause._) Had Columbus yielded to his mutinous crew and
returned to Spain without his great discovery, had Washington shrunk
away disheartened by British power and the snows of New Jersey, these
great instances would have been wanting for the encouragement of men.
But our Pilgrims belong to the same heroic company, and their example
is not less precious. (_Applause._)

Only a short time after the landing on Plymouth Rock, the great
republican poet, John Milton, wrote his “Comus,” so wonderful for
beauty and truth. His nature was more refined than that of the
Pilgrims; and yet it requires little effort of imagination to catch
from one of them, or at least from their beloved pastor, the exquisite,
almost angelic words at the close:--

“Mortals, that would follow me,
Love Virtue: she alone is free;
She can teach ye how to climb
Higher than the sphery chime:
Or if Virtue feeble were,
Heaven itself would stoop to her.”

“At the conclusion of Senator Sumner’s speech,” says the report,
“the audience rose and gave cheer upon cheer.”

SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL-RIGHTS BILL: THE LAST APPEAL.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, JANUARY 27, 1874.

The Supplementary Civil-Rights Bill, introduced by Mr. Sumner on
the first day of the Session, having now come up for consideration,
and the question being on a motion by Mr. Ferry, of Connecticut, to
refer it to the Committee on the Judiciary, Mr. Sumner said:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--There is a very good reason, a very strong reason, why
this bill should not be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and
it is found in the history of the bill. I have in my hand a memorandum,
which has been kindly prepared for me at the desk, disclosing details
which Senators ought to bear in mind before they vote. By the Journals
of the Senate it appears that as long ago as May 13, 1870,--

“Mr. Sumner asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, 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.”

The next appearance of the bill is July 7th, of that year, when,
according to the Journal, “Mr. Trumbull, from the Committee on the
Judiciary,” with a large number of other bills reported this to the
Senate, with a recommendation “that they ought not to pass.” The record
says that--

“The Senate proceeded to consider the said bills as in Committee
of the Whole; and no amendment being made, they were severally
reported to the Senate.

“On motion by Mr. Trumbull,

“_Ordered_, That the said bills be postponed indefinitely.”

You will observe, Sir, the bill was treated in the lump with others,
at the close of the session; and you have here the report of the very
committee to which it is now proposed to refer it.

The next appearance of the bill is January 20, 1871, and the entry is
as follows:--

February 15, 1871, “Mr. Trumbull, from the Committee on the Judiciary,
to whom were referred the following bills [the present with others],
reported them severally without amendment, and that they ought not to
pass.”

There was no action of the Senate at the time; for you will bear in
mind the lateness of the day in the session; and Senators cannot have
forgotten the pressure of business at that time. That was sufficient
reason against the consideration of the bill. Indeed, with all the
assiduity that I could command, I was not able to obtain a hearing for
it.

Then came the first session of the Forty-Second Congress, beginning
March 4, 1871. Upon the Journal it appears, March 9, 1871,--

“Mr. Sumner asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to
bring in [this same bill, with one other], which were read the
first and second times, by unanimous consent, and ordered to lie on
the table and be printed.”

In introducing the bill this third time I stated that it had already
been to the Judiciary Committee twice before; that it was to be
presumed that they had carefully considered it; that they had reported
it adversely; that they had not reported any amendment; that I did not
think it advisable now to refer the bill to a committee which had twice
recorded an adverse judgment; that the bill was well known to Senators;
that it had been before the Senate a long time; and that under the
circumstances I thought I should be justified in asking that it take
its place on the Calendar and be printed. The order was made, and it
held its place on the Calendar.

Shortly afterward a measure of general amnesty, it will be remembered,
passed the House of Representatives and came to this Chamber. Then it
was that I deemed it my duty to move this bill as an amendment, and you
will remember the extended discussion that ensued,--how justice to the
African race was contrasted with generosity to those who had struck at
the life of the Republic, and it was insisted that our first duty was
justice. The debate was protracted. Senators cannot have forgotten
it; and more than once votes were had upon the pending amendment. I
think it was twice carried by the casting vote of the Vice-President.
Certainly it was attached to the bill for general amnesty, and the
debate reached over weeks, during which time the Supplementary
Civil-Rights Bill, as it came to be called, underwent amendment. It
was modified in various particulars,--in none of great importance, in
none of principle, but verbally; also in the penalties, and in the
machinery: but the bill now stands, in principle and in substance, as
it was when originally introduced. So far as it is changed, it is a
change reached by debate in this Chamber. The Senate itself has been a
Committee of the Whole sitting on this bill, superseding thereby the
labors of any special committee.

Why, then, after two references to the Judiciary Committee should we
have a third? Is it for delay? Is it in the hope of any light on this
important subject which Senators have not already? Why, then, the
reference? I can see no considerable or sufficient object, except one
that we are compelled to recognize in this Chamber: can it be a mode of
opposition by interposing time, delay?

Now, Sir, the bill is on the Calendar No. 1. It should have been the
first acted upon this session; and if it was not acted upon first,
there is no blame on me, for I tried to have you act upon it on one
of the earliest days of this session, but I was resisted here by the
Senator from Connecticut [Mr. FERRY], and the Senator from Maine [Mr.
MORRILL]; the Senator from Connecticut insisting, then as now, that the
bill should go to a committee. Now, Sir, I appeal to the Senate to take
this important measure into its own hands at once and directly.

What is the use of a Committee? It is as eyes and ears to the Senate.
How often do we repeat that saying! But who wants eyes and ears for the
appreciation of this measure? Its character is manifest; its justice is
confessed; it is in harmony with all that has been done to carry out
the great results of the war; it is in harmony with the Declaration
of Independence, and with the grand history of the Republic; it is in
harmony with the Constitutional Amendments, and it is indeed necessary
in order to their full enjoyment. The necessity is manifest every day
in the outrages to which the colored race are exposed, not only in
travel and at hotels, but still more in the children of their homes,
who are shut out from those schools where they ought to receive
practically, as well as by lesson, the great duty of Equality. The bill
is an urgent necessity. There ought to be no delay. There should not be
the postponement of a Committee, for the Committee is unnecessary. The
Committee has already sat upon it once, twice: why a third time?

In the debate which ensued, Mr. Stewart, of Nevada, and Mr.
Edmunds, of Vermont (Chairman of the Judiciary Committee), among
others, participated, both urging the proposed reference, and the
latter in remarks replete with personality. Mr. Sumner responded as
follows:--

The Senator from Nevada has made a speech which is founded on oblivion
of the past. The bill has been examined by the Judiciary Committee, and
twice reported by them adversely without amendment.

MR. EDMUNDS. When was the last report?

MR. SUMNER. February 15, 1871.

MR. EDMUNDS. That was in the time of Trumbull.

MR. SUMNER. The Senator says, “That was in the time of Trumbull.” But
it was reported adversely by the Judiciary Committee, of which my
learned friend was a distinguished member, I think. I cannot mistake;
he must have been on the Committee, a party to its report; and there
was from him no minority voice, no opposition on this floor to the
report of the Chairman. He allowed the Chairman to speak for the
Committee, including himself.

But the Senator from Nevada, oblivious of this history, insists upon
another reference. He wishes to put this bill through another dance.
For what purpose? He has read the existing statute to which this is
supplementary, and he thinks that the Committee ought to consider the
aptitude of this bill to carry out the declared purpose. Why, Sir, I
agree with him that such aptitude ought to exist, but do not forget
that the bill has been before the Senate now nearly four years. Nearly
four years has this bill, substantially as at this moment, been before
the Senate, and twice before the Judiciary Committee.

Now, Sir, let us ascend from words to things. Why make another
reference? Is it that it may find verbal place on your record that
this bill was duly referred and duly reported? That is the only reason
I can imagine; for the bill in its substance is well known to every
Senator, and, I may add, is well known to every lawyer in the country.
It has been discussed here again and again, day after day, and has
been modified after discussion; and you now have the result of all
the discussion and the modification. It is well known. It is familiar
to the country. It has received the approbation of those who are most
interested in it. It has been prayed for by petitioners without
number. It has been commended at public meetings with an earnestness
and an enthusiasm almost without parallel.

MR. EDMUNDS. May I ask the Senator a question?

MR. SUMNER. Certainly.

MR. EDMUNDS. I should like to ask my friend, the Senator from
Massachusetts, (as he is now speaking of the character of the bill,
which I did not care to refer to particularly,) where the jury is
summoned, and a man should happen to be convicted of murder or any
other crime under the State law, would it, or not, set aside the
verdict?

MR. SUMNER. The Senator will pardon me. I had not intended to touch
this branch of the debate.

MR. EDMUNDS. I merely wish to ask him what he understands to be the
character of the fourth section, supposing we pass it just as it
stands, and supposing a jury happens to be summoned contrary to the
provisions of the fourth section, but in accordance with the law of
the State.

MR. SUMNER. The effect of the violation of the law in that respect
need not be considered. It is sufficient that this section provides
a penalty against those who violate the law; such is its simple
object.

MR. EDMUNDS. Ah! but let me ask my friend, does it not also provide
what shall constitute a lawful jury?

MR. SUMNER. Very well,--and should it not so provide?

MR. EDMUNDS. Very well,--but my question is, What would be the
effect upon the trial of an indictment found by a grand jury not
composed in conformity to this motion?

MR. SUMNER. I will not presume to pronounce an opinion on that
question. It is sufficient for me that the section is clear and
explicit in imposing a penalty upon the party making the exclusion, and
that is all the bill proposes. The other consequences may be, will be,
for the determination of the courts. The question belongs to them; I
doubt if it belongs to us. But the bill is open to amendment. Let the
Senator move such as he thinks the case requires: I shall welcome it.

When the Senator interrupted me I was about to address myself to
him; for I should not have risen this time but for the remarks which
he made. I know not, Sir, why my position on this question should
justify the personalities which the Senator from Vermont considers so
essential to debate. I certainly made no allusion to him, nor do I
claim anything for myself. I am an humble worker in this Chamber, and
in this cause I have been laborious for years; but not on that account
do I claim anything, nor do I make any pretence. I know not why the
Senator should, with personality of manner and allusion, undertake to
taunt me for the position that I occupy. Do I deserve it? I represent
humbly the sentiments of the people of Massachusetts, who have sent me
here now for many years. Always loyal to these sentiments I hope to
be, even though it brings upon me the displeasure of the Senator. Sir,
I am anxious to harmonize with that Senator. I know, too, his loyalty
to this cause,--I do not doubt it; but I now appeal to that Senator to
unite with me in speeding this great measure. Let him join sincerely,
with his large intelligence, to hasten this bill before the Senate
and make it the law of the land; so would he become a benefactor to a
much-oppressed people.

Possibly he has his doubts in regard to the Jury provision. I know
other lawyers have expressed doubts before; and from the inquiry that
he made a moment ago it is perhaps fair to infer that those doubts
haunt his mind. To that I simply answer, Happily they do not haunt
mine. I know the Constitution of my country, and I know that under
that Constitution, unless my judgment fails entirely, the provision
with reference to juries is absolutely valid and constitutional.
I challenge the discussion. Let the Senator make his objections.
The original Civil-Rights Bill, which passed over the veto of the
President, solemnly declares that no evidence shall be excluded from
any court of justice, National or State, on account of color. The
nation has undertaken to regulate the testimony, not only in its own
Courts but in State Courts; and will any one pretend that it may not
regulate the jury in State Courts, when it may regulate the testimony
in State Courts? Why, Sir, there is nothing in the Constitution
touching testimony, but there are no less than three distinct
provisions relating to trial by jury; and among other terms employed
is “an impartial jury,” which is among the privileges and immunities
of the citizen. And is it wrong for Congress, in the plenitude of its
powers, anxious to do justice to all, to declare that there shall be
an impartial jury in all tribunals, whether National or State, without
regard to color? Having begun by regulating the testimony, where is the
argument which is to prevent us from regulating the jury? I need not
remind my excellent friend that originally the witnesses and the jury
were almost one and the same.

MR. EDMUNDS. They were precisely the same.

MR. SUMNER. Very well,--so much the better; and the Senator knows that
there is a phrase handed down to us from English courts by which we
are reminded constantly of the “witness-box” and the “jury-box.” So
closely were they together that they come under a common nomenclature.
Now I insist that they shall come under a common safeguard. We have
already provided that there shall be no exclusion in testimony on
account of color: we must also provide that there shall be no exclusion
from the jury on account of color; and until that provision is made by
supreme national law, not to be set aside, justice is not fully done.

But, Sir, I had no intention to discuss the character of this bill;
and I have only been led into it by the allusion of the Senator, who,
holding the bill in his hand, signalizes that section as open to
criticism. Let him proceed with his criticism. But then I hope for
better things. I hope my friend, instead of criticism, will give us
that generous support which so well becomes him. He sees full well,
that, until this great question is completely settled, the results of
the war are not all secured, nor is this delicate and sensitive subject
banished from these Halls. Sir, my desire, the darling desire, if I
may say so, of my soul, at this moment, is to close forever this great
question, so that it shall never again intrude into these Chambers,--so
that hereafter in all our legislation there shall be no such words
as “black” or “white,” but that we shall speak only of citizens and
of men. Is not that an aspiration worthy of a Senator? Is such an
aspiration any ground for taunt from the Senator of Vermont? Will he
not, too, join in the aspiration and the endeavor to bring about that
beneficent triumph? Let this be omitted now, let any part of this bill
be dropped out now, and you leave the question for another Congress,
to be pursued by other petitions, to be pressed by other Senators and
Representatives; for, so long as injustice remains without redress, so
long will there be men to petition, and so long, I trust, will there be
Senators and Representatives to demand a remedy. I ask for all now.

At length, on the representation of Mr. Frelinghuysen, of New
Jersey, that, “by acquiescing with the other friends of the measure
in its reference to the Committee on the Judiciary, the Senator
from Massachusetts has it in his power to take from every opponent
of the bill any apology, reason, or excuse for opposing it,”
followed by the declaration, “I think we can give the Senator the
assurance that a fortnight will not pass without the bill being
reported,”--

Mr. Sumner inquiring,--“The Senator is a member of the Judiciary
Committee, I believe?”

MR. FRELINGHUYSEN. Yes, Sir.

MR. SUMNER. I accept his assurance and consent to the reference.

Mr. Edmunds, Chairman of the Committee, demurring to the proposed
agreement to report the bill within two weeks, suggested as a
substitute, “its consideration with the promptness that the
business of the Committee will allow,” which Mr. Frelinghuysen
pronouncing “equally satisfactory,” it was tacitly so settled,--Mr.
Howe, of Wisconsin, thereupon observing, “I think the assurances we
have from the Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from Vermont
are a sufficient guaranty that the bill will get back here in good
season.”

MR. SUMNER. And in good condition. (_Laughter._)

MR. EDMUNDS. Much better than it is now. (_Laughter._)

Mr. Morton of Indiana subsequently remarking,--

I do not myself feel that there is any great importance in
referring this bill to a committee, for the reason that the
question has been so long before the Senate and has been so
amply discussed. But still that is the usage of the Senate; we
do that with regard to all bills unless under some very strong
emergency; and if the Senator had consented in the first place
to the reference of the bill, we should have had it back long
ago. So, I think, he has nobody to blame but himself that this
bill is not now before the Senate to be acted upon. But I may
be allowed to express the hope, and I have no reason to doubt
that it will be gratified, that the Judiciary Committee will
promptly examine this bill, and report back a Civil-Rights Bill
upon which the Senate can take action before long. I think that
ought to be done for very many considerations,--

Mr. Sumner replied:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--I should not say another word, except for the ardor
with which my friend from Indiana comes forward to throw a little blame
on me. He thinks, that, if I had consented to an earlier reference of
this bill, it would now be in order before the Senate; but he says that
in a case of strong emergency bills are not referred to committees.
Now I ask the Senator from Indiana if this is not a case of strong
emergency? The bill has been pending nearly four solid years, during
all which time a portion of our fellow-citizens, counted by the
million, have been exposed to indignity; and because I tried to speed
the result, hoping to bring the Senate to a generous conclusion of
the whole measure without a reference to the Committee, the Senator
from Indiana thus tardily seeks to rebuke me. If I erred at all, it
was because I trusted the Senate. I felt, that, with this bill on the
Calendar and within reach, it could not hesitate. I was unwilling to
see the bill in a committee-room, where the Senate, in a generous
moment, could not take it up any day, and, so far as the Senate was
concerned, make it the law of the land. I put too much faith in this
body, which I ought to know well. I did, Sir, have generous trust. I
did believe that at some early day the bill would be considered and
adopted. I have been disappointed. More than once I have tried to reach
it, I have tried to bring it before the Senate; but you know well
the impediments; you know that other important matters have occupied
attention, so that I could not, with any reasonable chance of success,
seek to press this important measure. That, Sir, is the occasion
for delay; and I do not think--I hardly like to make any question
with my friend--but I do not think he was generous in the imputation
that he sought to throw upon me. Had that Senator, on the first day
of the session, or when I made an effort at a later day to bring it
up, come forward then to aid me in pressing it on the attention of
the Senate,--had he reminded the Senate and the country how many
fellow-citizens were shut out from their rights, and that a denial of
rights does not allow delay,--had these words come from the Senator
at that time, ah! we should have been having no such debate as has
occurred to-day. The bill would have been hastened on its way, and a
people long enslaved and degraded would be at last lifted to equality.

The question being now put, the bill was referred to the Committee
on the Judiciary without objection.

March 11, 1874, Mr. Sumner died.

April 14th his bill was reported back by Mr. Frelinghuysen from the
Committee with an amendment in the form of a substitute,--being
substantially the original bill taken into a new draught, with
a few differences of machinery. In this form, after long and
exhaustive debate, it was passed in the Senate, May 22d, by Yeas
29, Nays 16.

In the House, all efforts to take it up were frustrated by the
minority, under the rule requiring a two-thirds vote for this
purpose, until the closing hours of the succeeding session, March
3, 1875, when a vote was obtained referring it to the Committee on
the Judiciary, but too late for action, and the bill fell with the
expiration of the Congress.

Meanwhile, however, February 3d, Mr. Butler, of Massachusetts,
had reported a bill from this Committee, covering the provisions
of the Senate bill, with the exception only of that relating to
cemeteries, but with the addition to that on Common Schools of the
proviso,--

“That if any State or the proper authorities in any
State, having the control of Common Schools or other public
institutions of learning aforesaid, shall establish and
maintain separate schools and institutions giving equal
educational advantages in all respects for different classes of
persons entitled to attend such schools and institutions, such
schools and institutions shall be a sufficient compliance with
the provisions of this section so far as they relate to schools
and institutions of learning.”

On proceeding to a vote, the next day, February 14th, the entire
clause, embracing Common Schools, public institutions of learning
or benevolence, and national agricultural colleges, together with
this proviso, was, on motion of Mr. Kellogg, of Connecticut, struck
out by Ayes 123, Noes 48,--a call for the Yeas and Nays, which
would have brought out the names, being refused. A previous motion
by Mr. Cessna, of Pennsylvania, to substitute the full text of the
Senate bill for that of the House Committee, now recurring, was
defeated by Yeas 114, Nays 148,--and the latter, amended as above
stated, was then passed by Yeas 162, Nays 100,--and subsequently,
February 27th, in the Senate also, by Yeas 38, Nays 26,--and March
1st received the approval of the Executive.

This bill, entitled “An Act to protect all citizens in their
civil and legal rights,”[239] has since stood on the statute
book as a finality,--these rights, in the terms of the statute,
consisting of “the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations,
advantages, facilities, and privileges of [1st] inns, [2d] public
conveyances on land or water, [3d] theatres, and other places of
public amusement”; to which another section, rising to a higher
plane, adds the declaration [4th] “That no citizen possessing all
other qualifications which are or may be prescribed by law shall
be disqualified for service as grand or petit juror in any court
of the United States, or of any State, on account of race, color,
or previous condition of servitude,”--with such security to the
colored citizens of this inestimable right as may be found in the
provision that “any officer or other person, charged with any duty
in the selection or summoning of jurors, who shall exclude or fail
to summon any citizen for the cause aforesaid, shall, on conviction
thereof, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and be fined _not more_
than five thousand dollars.”

FOOTNOTES

[1] Case of Plau, French Consul-General at New York.

[2] April 30, 1864: A Bill to provide for the greater Efficiency of the
Civil-Service of the United States. Congressional Globe, 38th Cong. 1st
Sess., p. 1985; also, _ante_, Vol. XI. p. 278, seqq.

[3] Times, December 31, 1870. Executive Documents, 42d Cong. 2d Sess.,
H. of R., No. 1, Foreign Relations, p. 368.

[4] James, iii. 17.

[5] Speech, February 14th: Congressional Globe, 42d Cong. 2d Sess., p.
1016.

For the portion of the Speech referred to, setting forth the
authorities on this subject, see Appendix (A), pp. 41-44.

[6] Law of Nations, p. 281.

[7] 7 Wheaton, R., 487.

[8] See Appendix (A), pp. 43, 44.

[9] House Reports, 40th Cong. 2d Sess., No. 64, p. 5.

[10] Merchant of Venice, Act iv. Sc. 1.

[11] Letter of Treasurer Spinner to Senator Wilson, February 16, 1872:
Congressional Globe, 42d Cong. 2d Sess., p. 1072.

[12] Commentaries on American Law, Vol. I. p. 128.

[13] A Treatise of the Relative Rights and Duties of Belligerent and
Neutral Powers, in Maritime Affairs, by Robert Ward, Esq., Barrister at
Law, (London, 1801,) p. 166.

[14] Commentaries upon International Law, Vol. III. p. 282.

[15] Ibid., p. 427.

[16] Phases et Causes Célèbres. Tom. II. p. 407.

[17] Speech on the Report of the Foreign Enlistment Bill, April 16,
1823: Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, N. S., Vol. VIII. col. 1056.

[18] Occasional Productions, pp. 176, 177. See the letter to William H.
Trescott upon Public and Diplomatic Subjects.

[19] This dispatch, after remaining unquestioned for more than a month
and for several weeks after the date of this speech, was finally
contradicted by the French authorities. See Telegram from Minister
Washburne to Secretary Fish, March 19, and Note from the French Chargé
at Washington, M. de Bellonet, to same, March 30, 1872: Report of
Committee on Sale of Ordnance Stores,--Senate Reports, 42d Cong. 2d
Sess., No. 183, pp. 524, 604.

[20] Speech of February 14th: Congressional Globe, 42d Cong. 2d Sess.,
pp. 1008, 1013. This important letter may be found in the Report of the
Select Committee on the Sales of Ordnance Stores by the United States
Government during the Fiscal Year 1871-72: Senate Reports, 42d Cong. 2d
Sess., No. 183.

[21] _Ante_, p. 12.

[22] Joint Resolution, July 20, 1868: Statutes at Large, Vol. XV. p.
259.

[23] Executive Documents, 42d Cong. 2d Sess., H. of R., No. 1, Part 2,
pp. 250, 251.

[24] De l’Esprit des Lois, Liv. III. chs. iii. vi.

[25] Senate Reports, 36th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 278, pp. 140, 253.

[26] Law of Evidence, Part II. ch. xiii.

[27] Ibid., p. 250 (_Rex_ v. _Hardy_, 24 Howell’s State Trials, 808).

[28] Ibid.

[29] _Ante_, p. 5.

[30] D’Ewes, Journals of all the Parliaments during the Reign of Queen
Elizabeth, p. 629.

[31] Page 146.

[32] Gray’s Debates of the House of Commons, Vol. V. p. 145.

[33] Ibid., Vol. VI. p. 373.

[34] Manual of Parliamentary Practice, Sec. XXVI.

[35] Ibid.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Lex Parl. Amer., pp. 729-30.

[38] Ibid., p. 732.

[39] Lex Parl. Amer., p. 383.

[40] Congressional Globe, 26th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 231. Cushing, Lex
Parl. Amer., App. XIV., p. 1009.

[41] Entitled, “The Struggles (Social, Financial, and Political) of
Petroleum V. Nasby,”--DAVID ROSS LOCKE, editor of the Toledo [Ohio]
Blade, where most of these Letters, one hundred and eighty-eight in
number, first appeared, during the period from March 21, 1861, to May
12, 1870.

[42] Fourth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Fairmount Park, pp.
15-16.

[43] Ibid., p. 17.

[44] Works, ed. Sparks, Vol. IX. p. 476.

[45] Duties of Massachusetts at the Present Crisis: Formation of the
Republican Party. _Ante_, Vol. IV. p. 267.

[46] For the text of this passage see _ante_, Vol. VI. pp. 336-7.

[47] The Federalist, No. XLVII.

[48] Letter to Richard Henry Lee, November 15, 1775: Works, Vol. IV. p.
186.

[49] Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United
States,--Preface: Ibid., p. 296.

[50] Statutes at Large, ed. Hening, Vol. IX. p. 114.

[51] Constitution of Massachusetts, Part I.: Declaration of Rights,
Art. XXX.

[52] History of Civilization in England, (London, 1868,) Vol. I. pp.
199, 200.

[53] Ibid., p. 200.

[54] Ibid., p. 201.

[55] Ibid.

[56] Sir H. L. Bulwer, Historical Characters, (4th edit.,) Vol. II. p.
331.

[57] Speech at Great Falls, N. H., February 24, 1872, pp. 6, 7.

[58] June 6th, Mr. Sumner reiterated in debate, with much emphasis,
his statement of Mr. Stanton’s expressed opinion of the President, and
added the testimony of a letter of Horace White, editor of the Chicago
Tribune.--See Congressional Globe, 42d Cong. 2d Sess., p. 4283.

[59] Letter to Benjamin Adams, April 22, 1799: Works, Vol. VIII. p. 636.

[60] Letter to George Jefferson, March 27, 1801: Writings, Vol. IV. p.
388.

[61] Nipotismo di Roma, Parte I. p. 34.

[62] Ibid., pp. 41, 60.

[63] Nipotismo di Roma, Parte I. p. 60.

[64] Dictionnaire Universel d’Histoire et de Géographie.

[65] Appleton’s New American Cyclopædia.

[66] Nipotismo di Roma, Parte I. p. 68.

[67] Ibid., p. 89.

[68] Nipotismo di Roma, Parte I., p. 80.

[69] Ibid., pp. 82, 83; Parte II. p. 17.

[70] Nipotismo di Roma, Parte I. pp. 99-100.

[71] Ibid., p. 94.

[72] Ibid., Parte II. p. 132.

[73] Nipotismo di Roma, Parte I. p. 114.

[74] Ibid., Parte II. p. 162.

[75] Ibid., pp. 167-68.

[76] Ibid., Parte I. p. 103.

[77] Ibid., pp. 94, 95.

[78] Ibid., p. 94.

[79] Nipotismo di Roma, Parte I. pp. 179-80.

[80] Ibid., pp. 92-93.

[81] Ibid., Parte II. p. 132.

[82] Ibid., p. 75.

[83] Ibid., p. 142.

[84] Nipotismo di Roma, Parte II. p. 145.

[85] Ibid., p. 152.

[86] Ibid., p. 11.

[87] Ibid., p. 18.

[88] Irving’s Life of Washington, Vol. V. p. 22. See also the writings
of Washington, ed. Sparks, Vol. IX. p. 479, note.

[89] Letter to Benjamin Harrison, March 9, 1789: Writings, ed. Sparks,
Vol. IX. p. 476.

[90] Washington to Adams, February 20, 1797: Works of John Adams, Vol.
VIII. p. 530.

[91] Letter to Madison, March 23, 1813.

[92] Letter to George Jefferson, March 27, 1801: Writings, Vol. IV. p.
388.

[93] Letter to J. Garland Jefferson, January 25, 1810: Writings, Vol.
V. p. 498.

[94] Works of John Adams, Vol. IX. p. 63.

[95] _Ante_, p. 103.

[96] Works of John Adams, Vol. VIII. pp. 529-30, note.

[97] Historic Americans, p. 211.

[98] Letter to John Jebb, August 21, 1785: Works, Vol. IX. p. 535.

[99] Letter to Edward Cole, August 29, 1834: Letters and other
Writings, Vol. IV. p. 357.

[100] Memoirs, by Thomas Bartlett, (London, 1839,) p. 200.

[101] Deuteronomy, xvi. 19.

[102] Plutarch’s Lives,--_Cleomenes_, ed. Clough: Vol. IV. p. 479.

[103] “Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.”--VIRGIL, _Æneid_. Lib. II. 49.

[104] Life and Times of Henry Lord Brougham, London, 1870, Vol. II. pp.
29-32.

[105] Letter of Benjamin Harrison, January 6, 1785: Washington’s
Writings, ed. Sparks, Vol. IX. p. 83.

[106] Life of Washington, Vol. IV. p. 448.

[107] Letter to Harrison, January 22, 1785: Writings, ed. Sparks, Vol.
IX. p. 85.

[108] September 26, 1785: Ibid., p. 133.

[109] Forney’s Anecdotes of Public Men, p. 240.

[110] Guizot, Histoire de France, Tom. I. p. 519.

[111] See Memoirs, Vol. III. p. 528.

[112] King Henry VI., Third Part, Act V. Sc. 1.

[113] Timon of Athens, Act I. Sc. 1.

[114] Writings, ed. Sparks, Vol. XII. p. 1.

[115] Writings, Vol. VIII. p. 1.

[116] Congressional Globe, 41st Cong. 1st Sess., p. 1.

[117] Sir H. L. Bulwer, Historic Characters, Vol. II. p. 324.

[118] Boswell’s Life of Johnson, ed. Croker, April, 1781.

[119] Act of September 2, 1789, Section 8: Statutes at Large, Vol. I.
p. 67.

[120] Congressional Globe, 41st Cong. 1st Sess., p. 22.

[121] Congressional Globe, 41st Cong. 1st Sess., p. 22.

[122] Ibid., p. 34.

[123] Daily Morning Chronicle, March 16, 1869.

[124] Writings, Vol. VIII. p. 4.

[125] Act of July 23, 1866: Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. pp. 206-7.

[126] Statutes at Large, Vol. XV. p. 96.

[127] Statutes at Large, Vol. XII. p. 736.

[128] Ibid., Vol. XIV. p. 174.

[129] Ibid., p. 336.

[130] Ibid., Vol. XVI. p. 320.

[131] Statutes at Large, Vol. V. p. 260.

[132] Ibid., Vol. XV. p. 58.

[133] Ibid., Vol. XVI. p. 319.

[134] General Orders, No. 10.

[135] General Orders, No. 11.

[136] Ibid., No. 12.

[137] Ibid., No. 28.

[138] Congressional Globe, 40th Cong. 3d Sess., p. 754, Feb. 1, 1869.

[139] General Orders, No. 49.

[140] Statutes at Large, Vol. IV. p. 736.

[141] _Ante_, p. 135.

[142] Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., H. of R., No. 1, Part
2, p. 37.

[143] Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., H. of R., No. 1, Part
2, p. 4.

[144] Inaugural Address, March 4, 1869: Congressional Globe, 41st Cong.
1st Sess., p. 1.

[145] Daily Morning Chronicle, March 17, 1869.

[146] New York Custom-House Investigation,--Testimony of Gen. G. W.
Palmer: Senate Reports, 42d Cong. 2d Sess., No. 227, Vol. III. p. 581.

[147] Testimony of William Atkinson: Ibid., p. 626.

[148] Private letter to Mr. Sumner, quoted in Speech of March 27, 1871:
_Ante_, Vol. XIX. p. 32.

[149] Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 17, p. 79;
No. 45, p. 3. Senate Reports, 41st Cong. 2d Sess., No. 234, pp. 38, 39.

[150] Senate Reports, 41st Cong. 2d Sess., No. 234, p. 188.

[151] Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 17., pp.
80-82.

[152] Same, No. 34, p. 9.

[153] Congressional Globe, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., pp. 6, 7.

[154] Message, April 5, 1871: Cong. Globe, 42d Congr. 1st Sess., pp.
469-70.

[155] See Letter to Hon. Andrew D. White, _post_, p. 205.

[156] Titus Andronicus, Act I. Sc. 2.

[157] Cymbeline, Act III. Sc. 4.

[158] “Le roi de France ne venge pas les injures du duc d’Orléans.”
LOUIS XII.--Fournier, L’Esprit dans l’Histoire, (Paris, 1860,) p. 121.

[159] Raoul de Caën, Faits et Gestes du Prince Tancrède: Guizot,
Mémoires relatifs à l’Histoire de France, Tom. XXIII. p. 6.

[160] Third Satire of Juvenal, 454-55, 468-69: Dryden’s Works, ed.
Scott, Vol. XIII. p. 146.

[161] Gifford, (2d edit., London, 1806,) 407-10.

[162]

“Larges estoit et volentis,
Mès n’estoit pas bien ententis,
En ce que ou royaume failloit,
Si comme reson li bailloit.”

GODEFROY DE PARIS, _Chronique Métrique_, 8047-50.

[163] “Selon le droit de nature chacun doit naître franc.”--_Ord. 3
Juillet, 1315_: Ordonances des Roys de France de la troisième Race,
Tom. I. p. 583. Sismondi, Histoire des Français, Tom. IX. pp. 321-22.

[164] Annual Message, 21st Cong. 2d Sess., December 7, 1830.

[165] Speech at the Dayton Convention, September 10, 1840: Niles’s
Register, Vol. LIX. p. 70.

[166] Speech at Taylorsville, Hanover County, Va., June 27, 1840:
Works, Vol. VI. p. 421.

[167] Speech in the Senate, February 20, 1866: Congressional Globe,
39th Cong. 1st Sess., p. 932.

[168] New York Custom-House Investigation,--Testimony of Gen. G. W.
Palmer: Senate Reports, 42d Cong. 2d Sess., No. 227, Vol. III., pp.
581, 582.

[169] Hansard, Parliamentary History, Vol. XXI. col. 247, 267,--April
6, 1780.

[170] Hansard, Parliamentary History, Vol. XXI., col. 247.

[171] Daily Morning Chronicle, May 10, 1872.

[172] Josiah Quincy, Speech in the House of Representatives, January
30, 1811: Annals of Congress, 11th Cong. 3d Sess., col. 851.

[173] Livy, XXXVIII. 51.

[174] General Henry Lee, Oration before the Two Houses of Congress on
the Death of Washington, December 26, 1799: Annals of Congress, 6th
Cong., App., col. 1310.

[175] Daily Morning Chronicle, May 10, 1872.

[176] Speech at the Republican State Convention in Worcester, September
14, 1865. _Ante_, Vol. XII. p. 339.

[177] See Speech entitled “Republicanism _vs._ Grantism,”--_ante_, pp.
83-171.

[178] Vol. IV. p. 121.

[179] Proverbs, xxix. 4.

[180] Documents relative to the Colonial History of New York, ed.
O’Callaghan, Vol. IV. p. 1040.

[181] Self-Help, (Boston, 1860,) pp. 391-92.

[182] Pearce, Memoirs and Correspondence, (London, 1846,) Vol. III. pp.
424-25.

[183] Annual Message, 21st Cong. 2d Sess., December 7, 1830.

[184] Speech at the Dayton Convention, September 10, 1840: Niles’s
Register, Vol. LIX. p. 70.

[185] Speech at Taylorsville, Hanover County, Va., June 27, 1840:
Works, Vol. VI. p. 421.

[186] Speech in the Senate, February 20, 1866: Congressional Globe,
39th Cong. 1st Sess., p. 932.

[187] June 3, 1869.

[188] July 14, 1869.

[189] Democracy in America, ed. Bowen, (Cambridge, 1863,) Ch. VIII.
Vol. I. pp. 172-73.

[190] Letter to Madison, March 15, 1789: Writings, Vol. III. p. 5.

[191] New York Custom-House Investigation: Senate Reports, 42d Cong. 2d
Sess. No. 227, Vol. III. pp. 582, 626.

[192] See Report on Affairs in Louisiana: House Reports, 42d Cong. 2d
Sess. No. 92.

[193] House Reports, 40th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 7, p. 41.

[194] Ibid., as there condensed from the original: Two Treatises on
Government, Book II. § 222.

[195] American Annual Cyclopædia, 1872, p. 778.

[196] Speech of Mr. Sawyer, of South Carolina, on the Supplementary
Civil Rights Bill as an Amendment to the Amnesty Bill: Congressional
Globe, 42d Cong. 2d Sess., p. 490.

[197] Dante, De Monarchia, Lib. I. cap. 4.

[198] Ovid, Metamorphoses, ed. Garth, Book VII.: _The Dragon’s Teeth
transformed to Men_, vv. 31-34.

[199] _Ante_, Vol. VII. p. 268.

[200] _Ante_, Vol. VII. p. 351.

[201] Congressional Globe, 37th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 1982.

[202] _Ante_, Vol. VIII. p. 361. Congressional Globe, _ut supra_, p.
2010.

[203] Congressional Globe, _ut supra_, p. 2083.

[204] _Ante_, Vol. IX. pp. 70, 73, 74, and note. Congressional Globe,
_ut supra_, pp. 2195, 2196.

[205] _Ante_, Vol. IX. p. 146. Congressional Globe, _ut supra_, p. 2965.

[206] Ibid., p. 208.

[207] _Ante_, Vol. XI. p. 320. Congressional Globe, 38th Cong. 1st
Sess., p. 2800.

[208] _Ante_, Vol. XII. p. 76. Congressional Globe, 38th Cong. 2d
Sess., p. 381.

[209] Ibid., p. 331. Congressional Globe, _ut supra_, p. 1091.

[210] _Ante_, Vol. XII. p. 203. Congressional Globe, _ut supra_, p.
1126.

[211] Ibid.

[212] _Ante_, Vol. XII. pp. 291, 292.

[213] Ibid., p. 471.

[214] Ibid., p. 492.

[215] _Ante_, Vol. XIV. p. 204.

[216] _Ante_, Vol. XII. pp. 406-7.

[217] _Ante_, Vol. XIII. pp. 228-29. Congressional Globe, 39th Cong.
1st Sess., p. 686.

[218] _Ante_, Vol. XIV. p. 185.

[219] _Ante_, Vol. XIV. pp. 185-6.

[220] Ibid., pp. 146, 158-59, 163. Congressional Globe, 40th Cong. 1st
Sess., pp. 165, 167, 170.

[221] _Ante_, Vol. XV. p. 208. Congressional Globe, _ut supra_, p. 625.

[222] _Ante_, Vol. XVI. p. 64.

[223] _Ante_, Vol. XVII. pp. 115-16.

[224] American Annual Cyclopædia, 1872, p. 778.

[225] Ibid., p. 782.

[226] “Nec Deus intersit, nisi dignus vindice nodus
inciderit.”--HORAT., _De Arte Poetica_, 191-92.

[227] Anecdotes of the late Samuel Johnson, LL.D., during the last
Twenty Years of his Life, by Hesther Lynch Piozzi, (London, Cadell,
1786,) p. 83.

[228] “Cari sunt parentes, cari liberi, propinqui, familiares;
sed omnes omnium caritates patria una complexa est.”--CICERO, _De
Officiis_, Lib. I. cap. 17.

[229] Dr. William Drennan’s Hymn,

“All Nature feels attractive power.”

[230] For this bill, see, _ante_, Vol. XIX. pp. 213, 214.

[231] Bradford’s History of Plymouth Plantation, ed. Deane, p. 90.

[232] Winslow’s Brief Narration: Young, Chronicles of the Pilgrim
Fathers, (2d ed.) p. 397.

[233] Prince, Chronological History of New England, (ed. 1826,) p. 160.
Bradford, pp. 57, 72.

[234] Prince, p. 237. “With much adooe (and spent a good deal of it in
expences)”: Bradford, p. 204.

[235] Bradford, p. 211. Prince, p. 242.

[236] Neal, History of the Puritans, (London, 1733,) Vol. II. p. 20.

[237] Galatians, v. 9.

[238] Milton, Sonnet XII.

[239] Statutes at Large, Vol. XVIII. Part 3, pp. 335-36.

INDEX.

Abolition of Slavery, not prevented by the Constitution, I. 310.
Franklin petitions for, I. 312; II. 68, 231, 294; III. 17, 293;
VI. 203.
Jefferson’s desire for, I. 312; III. 15, 288.
Washington on, I. 312; II. 230; III. 17, 49 _et seq._, 286; V. 96;
VII. 129; VIII. 281.
A duty, I. 316.
In England, III. 302; IV. 313; VIII. 279.
Speech on bill for, in District of Columbia, VIII. 251.
In West Virginia, IX. 122.
Constitutional Amendment for, XI. 211 _et seq._
In America, advocated by Hartley, XV. 351, 352.
See _Constitutional Amendment_ and _Emancipation_.

Abolition Societies petition 1st Congress to abolish slavery, II. 68;
III. 17, 293; XII. 155.
Formation of, in the different States, XII. 154.

Abolitionists, need of, I. 314.
Jefferson, Franklin, and Washington were such, I. 314; III. 19;
VI. 213.
Not responsible for the Civil War, VII. 342-344.

Academy, Naval, appointments to, IX. 301.
National, of literature and art; also of moral and political sciences,
XI. 401.

Adams, Charles Francis, nominated for Vice-President in 1848, II. 295
_et seq._

Adams, John, on the Stamp Act, III. 130, 344.
On slavery, III. 287.
Supports equality of representation, IV. 54.
Author of Massachusetts Constitution and Bill of Rights, IV. 63, 70.
On opposition of the South to republican government, IV. 199; VII. 318.
On British impressment of American seamen, VIII. 50.
On effect of freeing slaves in Revolution, IX. 222.
On meaning of “republic,” XI. 192; XIII. 147, 152.
On republican government, XIII. 185; XX. 93.
His predictions concerning America, XIII. 185; XV. 42, 306-317, 364.
On Hartley, XV. 348.
On Cérisier, XV. 387.
His appointment of relations to office, XX. 103, 112, 113.
His refutation of an apology for nepotism, XX. 115.

Adams, John Quincy, on abolishing war, II. 412.
Treatment of, by slave-masters in Congress, VI. 204-206.
Influence of, VI. 305.
His opinions on, and efforts against, slavery, VI. 306; VII. 16, 55.
On restraints of popular sovereignty, as declared in Declaration of
Independence, VII. 55-57.
Proclaims war-powers of Congress to emancipate slaves, VII. 259-263;
IX. 142.
On privateering, VIII. 77; IX. 290.
On mutual right of search against slave-trade, VIII. 342.
His early argument against liberation of slaves by armies, IX. 141.
On the metric-system, XIV. 150.
On appointment of relations to office, XX. 114.
His opinion on acceptance of gifts, XX. 121.

Adams, Samuel, letter of, desiring Congressional action to abolish war,
II. 404.
On limited power of national government, III. 296.
Frees a female slave, VII. 14.
On republican government, XIII. 184.

Adjournments of Congress, protests against, IX. 176; XI. 405; XIV. 348;
XV. 172, 240.
Memorandum of, 1846-62, XI. 405 _et seq._

Administration, duty and strength of the coming (in 1861), VII. 213.
Stand by the, IX. 116.

Admiral, rank of, IX. 150.

Africa, reasons for the condition of, XVII. 170.

African Race, alleged inferiority of, VI. 220; XVII. 171.
Merits and capacities of, VI. 297; IX. 226; XVII. 172-176.
See _Colored Persons_ and _Colored Race_.

Agriculture, in slave and free States, VI. 147.
In United States in 1850, IX. 250 _et seq._

Alabama, case of the, X. 27 _et seq._; XVII. 65-69.
Claims, XVII. 53, 124-127; XX. 12.

Alaman, Lucas, career and works of, XV. 425 _et seq._
His prophecy concerning Mexico, XV. 426-428.

Alaska. See _Russian America_.

Alembert, M. d’, letter of, on Latin verse applied to Franklin, X. 236.

Alexandreïs, the, origin and history of, XII. 380-385, 388-393.
Author of, XII. 385-388.
Analysis of, XII. 394-404.

Algerine Captive, the, quoted, II. 65; III. 292; VIII. 292.

Algerine Slavery, illustrations of, in literature, II. 8-12, 83-90.
Compared to American, II. 63-69.
Efforts of United States against, II. 69-76; VIII. 283-298.
Abolished, II. 80; VIII. 297; X. 73.
Influence of religion on, II. 92.
Descriptions of, by travellers and captives, II. 94-99.
Evil effects of, II. 100.
See _Algiers_, _Barbary States_, _Tripoli_, and _Tunis_.

Algiers, described by old English writers, II. 21.
War of United States with, II. 74; VIII. 297.
Expeditions of Lord Exmouth against, II. 77-80; VIII. 297; IX. 398.
Abolition of white slavery in, II. 80; VIII. 297; X. 73.

Allston, Washington, tribute to, as the artist, in Phi Beta Kappa oration
of 1846, I. 272-284.
Mrs. Jameson on, I. 273.

Ambassadors, seizure of, on neutral ships, according to English
authorities, VIII. 55 _et seq._;
testimony to American policy on same, VIII. 57-62;
policy of Continental Europe on same, VIII. 63.

Ambulance and hospital corps, IX. 255.

America, prophetic voices concerning, XV. 251.
Allusions to, by early English and American poets, XV. 260-264.
Early designation of United States, XV. 431; XVI. 48-50;
and perhaps its future name, XVI. 50.
Geographical unity of, XVI. 51 _et seq._

Ames, Adelbert, Gen., remarks on admission of, as Senator from
Mississippi, XVIII. 11.

Amherst College, Commencement oration at, II. 153.

Amnesty, must not be granted to Rebels too soon, XVIII. 301; XIX. 318.
Must be united with equal rights for colored persons, XIX. 215, 259,
263, 317; XX. 69, 290.

Ancients and Moderns, battle of, II. 259.

Andrew, John A., appeal for election of, as Governor of Massachusetts,
VI. 379.
His merits, VII. 18.
Opposes all compromise in 1861, VII. 179.
Letters to, Jan. 17-Feb. 20, 1861, VII. 186-199.
Extract from letter to, on emancipation, VIII. 14.
On pay and enlistment of colored troops, X. 316 _et seq._

Anti-Lucretius, the, X. 249-251.

Antislavery Duties, our immediate, III. 122.

Antislavery Enterprise, the, its necessity, practicability, etc., V. 1;
its origin and growth, V. 7-9.
Defined, V. 10.
Its object, V. 24.
Not dangerous to masters, V. 28;
or injurious to slaves, V. 30.
Good results of, V. 32-34.
Aspersions upon the, V. 36-38.
Its prospects, V. 48.
Appeals to all by every argument, V. 49.

Antislavery Society, American, letters to, XIV. 51; XVIII. 45.

Anxieties and prospects during the winter of 1860-61, VII. 186.

Appropriation Bills, origination of, V. 83;
debates in National Convention on same, V. 84-87, 88 _et seq._
Example of England as to, V. 90.

Aranda, Pedro, Count, XV. 395.
American ministers on, XV. 396.
His predictions concerning America, XV. 397-400.
Ideas resembling his, XV. 401.

Arbitration, a substitute for war, I. 51; II. 416; XX. 80.
Established by Switzerland and German Confederation, II. 380.
Advocated by Cobden, II. 409.
Efforts to establish, II. 421.
Stipulated, or a congress of nations, with disarmament, III. 117.
Recommended for settlement of San Juan boundary question, VII. 216.
Suggested by England in 1870 to obviate Franco-German War, XVIII. 190.
International, XX. 273.

Architecture, changes in, I. 114.

Arctic Expeditions, XVIII. 54.

Argenson, René, Marquis d’, on equality, XIII. 198.
Career of, XV. 286-288.
His writings, XV. 288-291.
His prophecy concerning America, XV. 291.

Aristocracy, defined, XIII. 208.

Aristotle, testifies to opposition to slavery, II. 15.
On coinage, XI. 271.
On government, XIII. 145.
On citizenship, XIII. 330.
His definition of equity, XVIII. 36.

Arkansas, territorial organization of, IV. 103.
Speech on recognition of, XI. 351;
reasons for opposition to same, XI. 355-360.
Sources of Congressional power over, XI. 362-372.

Arlington, Massachusetts, celebration at, on assuming its new name,
XV. 181.

Arlington, Virginia, the patriot dead at, XVIII. 254.

Armies, standing, of Europe in 1845, I. 75.
Not necessary in United States, I. 86.
Power of Congress over, I. 354.
Testimony of Frederick of Prussia to effect of, II. 370 (and _note_);
XVIII. 226.
The national, and fugitive slaves, VIII. 7.
Sir Thomas More on, XVIII. 225.
Montesquieu on, XVIII. 247.

Armories, civil superintendents of, IV. 12.

Arms, results of wearing, I. 99; VI. 179; XVIII. 226;
Judge Jay on same, I. 100.
Sale of, by United States to France in war of 1870, XX. 5.

Army, distinguished from militia, I. 355.
Of United States composed of volunteers, I. 356;
of same in Rebellion, IX. 212.
No exclusion of retired officers of, from civil service, XVIII. 51.

Art, importance of expression in, I. 278.
Battles not subjects for, I. 281.
In the National Capitol, XIV. 164.
American, XIV. 175-178.
See _Engraving_.

Ashley, James M., and Reconstruction, XII. 7.

Assailants, reply to, IV. 172.

Atchison, David R., V. 160.
Speech of, quoted, V. 173.

Atheists, declared, not allowed to take oath, VIII. 220 _et seq._

Auburn System of prison discipline explained, I. 171; II. 117.
Propagates vice, I. 173.
Supported by Boston Prison-Discipline Society, I. 178, II. 125.
Compared to Pennsylvania system, II. 144-146.

Augustine, St., protests against war-preparations in time of peace,
I. 107.
On unjust laws, III. 362; XI. 207.

Austria, army of, before 1845, I. 75.
Navy of, before 1840, I. 76.
Relative expenditure of, for war-preparations, I. 78.
Numbers of its Parliaments, XX. 2.

Authors, in slave and free States, VII. 284.

Babcock, Orville E., his management of negotiation for annexion of San
Domingo, XVIII. 267-270; XIX. 37, 54-57; XX. 145 _et seq._
His assumption of title of aide-de-camp to the President, XVIII. 268
_et seq._; XX. 145.
Supported by U. S. ships, XIX. 53 _et seq._; XX. 145, 146.

Bacon, Lord, his definition of war, I. 14.
On philanthropy, I. 286; V. 34.
Ideas of, on progress, II. 265.
On settlement of Virginia, XI. 456.
His definition of equity, XVIII. 36.

Bacon, Roger, legend of, I. 212.

Baez, Buenaventura, XVIII. 267; XX. 144.
His associates, XVIII. 267; XIX. 37; XX. 144.
Sustained by U. S. ships of war, XVIII. 271, 303; XIX. 27 _et seq._
His career, XIX. 31-36.
Testimony to his support by U. S. navy, XIX. 42-45, 56-64.

Bailey, Goldsmith F., Representative from Massachusetts, speech on death
of, VIII. 366.

Baker, Edward D., Senator from Oregon, speech on death of, with call for
emancipation, VII. 370-376.

Ballot, importance of the, V. 171; XIV. 325.

Baltimore, attack on the Sixth Massachusetts Regiment at, April 19, 1861,
VII. 227.

Banks. See _Free Banking_, _National Banks_, and _State Banks_.

Banks, Nathaniel P., letter on commemoration of his election as Speaker
of the House of Representatives, V. 97.

Barbary States, white slavery in the, II. 1.
Gibbon on origin of their name, II. 6.
Compared to slave States of America, II. 7; VI. 159-161.
Military expeditions against, II. 22-33.
Treaties of, with Great Britain, II. 30,--and with United States, II.
70, 73, 74; VIII. 294 _et seq._
Efforts to ransom white slaves in, II. 33-37, 57; VIII. 282, 286-296.
Efforts of slaves to escape from, II. 39.
Narratives of escapes from slavery in, II. 41-50, 55.
Records of American slaves in, II. 50-55; VIII. 285.
Wars of, with United States, II. 71-76; VIII. 296.
Abolition of white slavery in, II. 78, 80; VIII. 297; X. 73.
Testimony to condition of white slaves in, II. 91-99; VIII. 284.
Black slavery in, II. 101.
See _Algerine Slavery_, _Algiers_, _Tripoli_, and _Tunis_.

Bates, Edward, Attorney-General, opinion of, on enlistment of colored
troops, X. 321 _et seq._
Opinion of, declaring colored persons citizens of United States, XIII.
278, 368.
Anecdote of, concerning colored officers, XVIII. 159.

Bayard, Chevalier, conduct of, in a duel, I. 66; XVIII. 178.

Bayard, James A., argument of, to prove that a Senator is a United States
officer, quoted, X. 287-289.

Belgium, the mission to, XI. 43.

Bell, John, party in support of, in 1860, VI. 357; VII. 74.
Plan of same, VI. 357-359;
same, in 1864, XI. 419.

Bellièvre, Pomponne de, engraved portrait of, XIX. 187.
Dr. Thies on same, XIX. 187, 188.
His career, XIX. 188-191.

Belligerence, rule for recognition of, X. 126 _et seq._; XVII. 60,
121-124.
Requisites for concession of ocean, X. 126-133; XVII. 59 _et seq._,
122,--authorities declaring same, X. 129-131;
British precedents, illustrating same, X. 133-135.
No neutrality possible without recognition of, XVII. 65, 203.

Bentham, Jeremy, his plan for universal peace, II. 397.

Berkeley, Bishop, XV. 275-278.
His prophecy concerning America, XV. 278;
Webster on same, XV. 278;
predictions resembling same, XV. 279-281.

Bills of Rights, their history and policy, IV. 62.
Adoption of one in Massachusetts, IV. 69-71.

Bingham, Kingsley S., Senator from Michigan, speech on death of, VII.
364;
protests against slavery in same, VII. 365.

Binney, Horace, XVIII. 315.

Bismarck, Count, XVIII. 230 _et seq._

Black Code, the, must be abolished, VII. 362; XII. 310.

Blackstone, Sir William, on the English militia, I. 357.
On trial by battle, II. 349.
Influence of his commentaries in America, III. 332; XVI. 84.
On recovery of escaped villeins, III. 333.
On fugitive slaves in England, IV. 303 (see _note_, 304).
On unlimited authority of governments, VII. 51.
On levying war, VIII. 125.
On power of Speaker of House of Lords, XVI. 103.
On the post-office as a source of revenue, XVIII. 64.

Blaine, James G., letter to, on Presidential election of 1872, XX. 196.

Blaine Amendment to the Constitution, speeches on, XIII. 115, 282, 338.
Objections to, XIII. 120-123, 284-315, 375 _et seq._
Boston Recorder on, XIII. 291-293.
John E. King on, XIII. 303.
Substitutes for, XIII. 315-323.
Opposite sides on meaning of the, XIII. 338.
Opinion of Gerrit Smith and others on, XIII. 340-342.

Blockade, commercial, should be abandoned, VIII. 78.
British complaints of, during Rebellion, X. 17-19.
Lincoln’s proclamation of, XVII. 62-64.
Instances of pacific, XVII. 63.

Blount, William, impeachment of, X. 286; XVI. 94.

Bonds, national taxation of, XVI. 269-271, 356 _et seq._; XVII. 108.
Payment of, by greenbacks, XVI. 271-277, 358-362; XVII. 107.
Reasons for reducing interest on, XVII. 288 _et seq._
See _Five-twenties_ and _Ten-forties_.

Books, increased tax on, opposed, IX. 166 _et seq._
No tax on, XI. 297; XII. 204; XIV. 266-270.
Cheap, and public libraries, XIV. 263.
On the free list, XVIII. 141; XX. 61.

Boston, should demand withdrawal of troops from Mexico, I. 376.
Leadership of, in generous actions, I. 376.
School Committee of, has no power to make color-distinctions, III.
82-86.
Opposition of, to Stamp Act, III. 342-344, IV. 167 _et seq._
Petition for repeal of Fugitive-Slave Bill, speech on, IV. 159-171;
origin of same, IV. 160.
Vote of, against slavery, in 1701, IV. 189; VI. 26; VII. 13; XII. 145.
Importance of, in Revolution, IV. 199; XVII. 98.
Public reception of Mr. Sumner at, in 1856, VI. 22.
The city of, and Mr. Sumner, XIII. 280.
Relief of, after great fire of 1872, XX. 258.
Its proper boundaries, XX. 279.

Boston Common, and its extension, VI. 96.
The first treasure of Boston, XX. 73.

Boston Prison-Discipline Society, supports Auburn system, I. 178; II.
125.
Injustice of, to Pennsylvania system, I. 179; II. 108, 124 _et seq._
Speech before, II. 104.
Mr. Sumner’s relations to, II. 108, 112.
Letter of Dr. Wayland on, II. 109.
Reports and discussions of, II. 111 _et seq._
Management of, criticised, II. 113, 124, 140 _et seq._
Its report of 1843 criticised, II. 125-138;
foreign comments on same, II. 125;
same quoted, II. 126, 128, 130.
Duty of, II. 138.
Increased usefulness needed in, II. 140-143.
Letter of De Tocqueville on, II. 148 (_note_).

Boston Public Library, foundation of, X. 272.

Bounty Lands for soldiers out of real estate of Rebels, VIII. 363.

Bourbons, Massachusetts Whigs in 1855 compared to, V. 74.

Boutwell, George S., course of, in the Treasury, defended, XVII. 112.
On intriguing for the President by office-holders, XX. 225 _et seq._

Breckenridge, John C., claims of party in support of, in 1860, VI. 359.
Effect of vote for, VI. 360.

Bright, Jesse D., of Indiana, expulsion of, from Senate, VIII. 114;
facts in case of, VIII. 123-135.

Bright, John, on English assistance to rebel States, XVII. 72.

Brooks, Preston S., his assault on Mr. Sumner, V. 257-271 (_Appendix_);
defence of same by the South, V. 271-280 (_Appendix_);
sentiment of the North on same, V. 302-328 (_Appendix_).
Mr. Sumner’s feelings towards, XX. 197.

Brougham, Lord, on equality, III. 55.
On slavery, IV. 315; VIII. 262.
On privilege of Parliament, VI. 94.
On untrustworthiness of slave-masters to legislate for freedmen, IX.
225; XIV. 213.
His mistake in quoting Latin verse applied to Franklin, X. 221.
On apprenticeship in British West Indies, XI. 317; XIII. 286.
His advice to a young lawyer, XVIII. 315.
His refusal of a gift, XX. 119.

Browne, John W., tribute to, as a college classmate, VI. 348.

Browne, Sir Thomas, prophecy of, concerning America, XV. 268-270.

Buchanan, James, on interpretation of the Constitution, IV. 181.
On power of Congress to abrogate treaties, V. 119.
Defends irregular proceedings in Michigan before its admission as a
State, V. 224, 229, 234.
Effect of a vote for, VI. 13.
Corruption in his election and administration, VI. 308-310, 335.
Recognizes Lecompton constitution for Kansas, VI. 310, 333.
Denounced, VI. 311.
Favors Crittenden compromise, VII. 179.
Mr. Sumner’s interview with, in 1861, VII. 180 _et seq._
His inactivity against Rebellion, VII. 324; X. 192.
On surplus of Chinese indemnity fund, XVIII. 120.

Buffalo Convention of 1848, speech at meeting to ratify its nominations,
II. 291.
Described, II. 293.
Principles of, II. 294.
Candidates of, II. 295.

Burke, Edmund, on the American War, I. 346.
On glory, II. 181.
On recognition of the French Republic, X. 111 _et seq._, 119.
On extinction of States, X. 199.
On untrustworthiness of slave-masters in regard to freedmen, XII. 293;
XIII. 56; XIV. 212.
On impeachment, XVI. 106 _et seq._, 144, 151, 153, 156, 158, 160, 214.

Burlingame, Anson, duty to vote for, VI. 20; VII. 73.
Congratulation on his reëlection in 1856, VI. 41.
Regret for his defeat in 1860, VII. 80.
Tribute to, XVI. 319.
On disposition of surplus of Chinese indemnity fund, XVIII. 122-123.

Burns, Anthony, surrender of, IV. 261; V. 189.

Burns, Robert, prediction by, concerning America, XV. 404.

Butler, Andrew P., Senator from South Carolina, attacks of, answered,
IV. 175-212; V. 145-149.
Compared to Don Quixote, V. 144.
His hostility to Kansas denounced, V. 239-242.
On the fugitive clause in the Constitution, X. 371.

Butler, Benj. F., Gen., care of, for fugitive slaves, VII. 256.

Buxton, Thomas F., course of, in moving emancipation, XVIII. 149
_et seq._

Bynkershoek, his definition of war, I. 15.
On confiscation of property in war, IX. 36; XVII. 13.
On seizures in neutral waters, XII. 13.
On reprisals, XVI. 301.

Cabinet, the President’s, character of the, in United States, XX. 127.

Cabral, José Maria, policy of, in San Domingo, XVIII. 275.
Career of, XIX. 33, 35 _et seq._

Calhoun, John C., on equality, as proclaimed in Declaration of
Independence, III. 55; XIII. 234; XIX. 300.
Opposes irregular admission of Michigan, V. 228.
Influence of, VI. 305.
His opinions on slavery, VI. 306.
Opposes a single national name, XVI. 47;
and a national government, XVI. 58.
His opinion on powers of Vice-President, as President of Senate, XVI.
122-124.

California, extension of slavery into, threatened, III. 24.
Testimony to transportation of slaves to, III. 25.
Admission of, III. 124.
Safety of passengers in steam-ships for, VI. 109.

Campbell, Lewis D., letter to, VI. 11.

Canaan, curse of, not applicable to Africans, V. 17; VI. 221-223; XVII.
146.

Canada, termination of reciprocity treaty with, XII. 46.
Trade of, with United States, XII. 50-52.
Cobden on annexation of, to United States, XV. 423 _et seq._; XVII.
129.
Invited by Continental Congress to join United Colonies, XVII. 128.
Future union of, with the United States predicted, XVII. 129.

Canal, ship-, at Niagara, XIV. 99.
Through the Isthmus of Darien, XIV. 124.

Canning, George, on fitting out of privateers by neutrals, X. 31.
On recognition of new governments, X. 87.
On belligerency, X. 127.
On untrustworthiness of slave-masters to legislate for slaves, XIV.
212.
Author of Monroe doctrine, XV. 415.
On Spanish America, XV. 417.

Cape Cod Association of Massachusetts, letter to, IV. 237.

Capital punishment, Rantoul’s efforts for abolition of, III. 249.
Letter against, IV. 331.

Capitol, the national, no picture at, of victory over fellow-citizens,
XII. 201.
Art in the, XIV. 164.

Caroline, case of the, XII. 26; XVII. 75.

Carpenter, Matthew H., Senator from Wisconsin, reply to his criticisms
on the supplementary civil-rights bill, XIX. 288-309.
On the declaration of Independence, XIX. 303.
Reply to his imputations on Mr. Sumner’s fidelity to the Constitution,
XIX. 309-313.

Carpet-baggers, XVI. 353.

Cars, street, opening of, to colored persons, X. 323; XV. 222.

Caste, and prejudice of color, I. 161; XI. 228; XIX. 246.
In United States, III. 73, 80; XI. 29; XIII. 210; XVII. 37, 133, 145;
XIX. 230, 297.
Defined, III. 73; XIII. 211; XVII. 140; XIX. 297.
Negroes described as a, by foreign writers, III. 75; XI. 29; XIX. 230.
Testimony to, in India, III. 76-80; XI. 29; XVII. 144 _et seq._; XIX.
297 _et seq._
Powers of Congress to prohibit, XVII. 34.
The successor of slavery, XVII. 37, 133.
The question of, XVII. 131.
Faith in its disappearance, XVII. 135.
In Europe and the East, XVII. 140, 141.
In India, XVII. 141-145.
Apology for, in United States, XVII. 146.
Forbidden by a common humanity, XVII. 162.
Importance of question of, XVII. 181.

Cato the Censor, on disposal of slaves, II. 17.

Cattle-plague, power of Congress to counteract the, XIV. 49.

Centralism, true, distinguished from false, XIV. 217; XVI. 60; XIX. 129.

Cérisier, Antoine Marie, XV. 386.
John Adams on, XV. 387.
His writings and predictions concerning America, XV. 387-391.

Cervantes, a slave in Algiers, II. 9, 34, 38, 39, 94.
Efforts of, against slavery, II. 9.
On slavery, II. 39.
His “Life in Algiers” quoted, II. 88-90.

Chambrun, Marquis de, defended, XX. 9-11.

Champagne, Philippe de, engraved portrait of, XIX. 192;
authorities on same, XIX. 192.

Channing, William Ellery, tribute to, as philanthropist, in Phi Beta
Kappa oration, I. 284-298.
His labors for liberty compared to Milton’s, I. 292.
On the true object of life, II. 181.
On Whig and Democratic parties, II. 312.

Chaplains, military, II. 361.

Charity, in slave and free States, VI. 150.

Charles V., sends expedition against Tunis, II. 22.
Sanctions slave-trade in West Indies, II. 24.

Chatham, Lord, on the American war, I. 346 _et seq._
On withdrawing British troops from Boston, I. 375.
On the Stamp Act, III. 345; IV. 169.
On authority of judicial decisions, XI. 208.
His instructions on violation of Portuguese territory, XII. 28-30.

Chesapeake, case of the, XII. 22; XVII. 74.

Cheyenne Indians, massacre of, XII. 66.

Chicago, the great fire at, and our duty, XIX. 161.

Chief-Justice, the, reasons for requiring him to preside at impeachment
of the President, XVI. 89-95.
Presiding in the Senate, cannot rule or vote, XVI. 98.

Child, Sir Josiah, XV. 270.
Disraeli on his prediction concerning America, XV. 271.
On New England, XV. 272 _et seq._

China, our relations with, XVI. 318.
Return of Marco Polo from, XVI. 321-323.
Results of his travels in, XVI. 323 _et seq._
Convention of 1858 with, and payment of claims on, XVIII. 115-120.
Religion of, XVIII. 157.

Chinese, advantages of their immigration to United States, XVII. 183.
Naturalization of, defended, XVIII. 152-159.

Chinese Embassy, the, XVI. 318.

Chinese Indemnity Fund, XVIII. 115.
Propositions with regard to surplus of, XVIII. 120-127;
same not declined by China, XVIII. 127-129;
duty of United States as to same, XVIII. 130-133.

Chivalry, pretension of slave-masters to, refuted, XI. 449-460.
Defined by Kenelm Digby, XI. 460.

Choate, Rufus, on Whig views of slavery, II. 311.
On the Declaration of Independence, XIX. 301.

Choiseul, Claude, Duc de, career of, XV. 321-326.
His predictions concerning America, XV. 323-325.

Cholera from abroad, power of Congress to provide against, XIV. 59.

Christianity, opposed to war, I. 54, 58.
The religion of progress, II. 251;
and of equality, III. 57.
Does not sanction slavery, V. 19.

Church, the, its attitude in relation to war, I. 54, 58.
Its early testimony against war, I. 59.
Doctrine of millennium in the, II. 250.
Condemns trial by battle, II. 346.
In America, early opposed to slavery, III. 289-291; VI. 313; XII.
151-154.
Testimony of, against slavery, XI. 202; XII. 176.

Cicero, on war, I. 56 (see _note_).
On patriotism, I. 68 (see _note_).
His opinions on glory, II. 165, 170-174.
On unjust laws, III. 362; XI. 207.
On a commonwealth, X. 106 _et seq._
His definition of law, X. 109.
On government, XIII. 145.

Cities, evil influence of commercial spirit in, IV. 51.

Civil Rights, protection of, XIII. 271.
Johnson’s veto of bill for, XIII. 276-279.
The same as political rights, XIV. 215.
Sufferings from denial of equality in, XIX. 222.
Sources of Congressional power to grant, XIX. 232-234, 272-284, 286.

Civil-Rights Bill, supplementary, speeches on, XIX. 203.
Necessity of, XIX. 231, 235, 266; XX. 203, 267, 305.
Immediate action on, urged, XX. 286, 304-307.
Not declared unconstitutional by Supreme Court, XX. 287, 289.
Last appeal for, XX. 301.
History of, XX. 301-304.
Jury provision of, discussed, XX. 307-310.

Civil Service, reform in the, XI. 278; XX. 8.
No exclusion of retired army officers from, XVIII. 51.
The initial point of reform in, XIX. 168, 174; XX. 161, 220.

Civil War, Livy on, I. 9.
Roman opinions of, II. 190 (see _illustrations_, 203-206), 427.
Uninvited mediation in, not allowable, X. 49, 85.

Claflin, William, letter to, VII. 182.
Candidate for Governor of Massachusetts in 1870, XVIII. 170.

Claims, on France for spoliations of American commerce, XI. 70;
objections to same answered, XI. 73-79, 132-158;
origin and history of same, XI. 81-96;
compensation for same, XI. 158;
value of same, XI. 162-166.
Authorities on compensation for, XI. 167.
Of citizens in rebel States, XVII. 10.
For losses by war, instances of payment of, XVII. 19-22, 25-28.
Of loyalists after Revolution, XVII. 23;
motives of Parliament in allowing same in part, XVII. 24.
On England, XVII. 53, 124; XX. 12.
On China, convention for, and payment of, XVIII. 115-120.

Clarkson, Thos., beginning of his career, II. 200.
His account of Lafayette’s opinions of slavery, II. 210.

Classical Studies, I. 253.

Classics, the, I. 253-255.

Clay, Henry, on claims for French spoliations, XI. 130.
On one term for the President, XIX. 171; XX. 158, 221.

Clemency, to political offenders, III. 181.
And common-sense, XII. 371.
To Rebels, limitations on, XII. 405-412.

Clergy, of New England, protest of, against Nebraska Bill, IV. 140.
Their early influence for liberty, IV. 144.
Defence of their right to protest, IV. 151.
Exemption of, from conscription, IX. 303.

Coal, cheap, XIV. 271.
Tax on, oppressive to New England, XIV. 272.

Cobbett, William, sketch of, I. 190-194.
On Thos. Paine, I. 195.
Industry of, described by himself, I. 195-198.
Compared to Scott, I. 198.
On amount of sleep required, I. 202.

Cobden, Richard, advocates arbitration, II. 409.
Letter on, XII. 366.
His character and labors, XV. 422.
His prediction concerning America, XV. 423 _et seq._; XVII. 129.
On American losses in Rebellion, caused by England, XVII. 77, 78, 80.
On penny postage, XVIII. 73.

Coke, Lord, on arrangement of time, I. 200.
On surrender of fugitives, X. 365.
On the laws of Parliament, XVI. 102.

Coleridge, on Christianity and slavery, V. 20.

Coles, Edward, letter to, III. 253.

Collamer, Jacob, Senator from Vermont, speech on death of, XIII. 38.

Colonies, British, of North America, elements of nationality in, XVI.
22 _et seq._;
efforts for union among same, XVI. 23-27.
Tend toward independence, XVII. 119.
Of North America, postal service in, XVIII. 66-68.

Colonization for freedom, XII. 334.

Color, caste and prejudice of, I. 161; XI. 228; XIX. 246.
Prejudice of, peculiar to America, I. 161; III. 99.
Removal of disqualification of, in carrying mails, VIII. 247.
Exclusion of witnesses on account of, XI. 1.
Not a qualification for the franchise, XIII. 214, 307-309; XVI.
246-249; XVII. 40.
Distinction of, not recognized by the Constitution, XVI. 247; XVII.
42, 489; XIX. 249,--or by Declaration of Independence, XVI. 247;
XVII. 43, 152, 159; XIX. 249;
same must be expressly authorized in order to exist, XIX. 250.
No distinction of, recognized by common law, as declared by
Chief-Justice Holt, XIX. 250.
Prejudice of, illustrated by judicial decisions in Ohio, XIX. 252.
See _Caste_.

Colorado, objections to admission of, as a State, XIII. 346-373.
Requirement of enabling Act for, XIII. 348, 358.
Constitution of, quoted, XIII. 349;
evidence of its denial of rights to colored persons, XIII. 364
_et seq._

Colored Citizens, passports for, VII. 229.
Right and duty of, in organization of government, XII. 231, 298.
Hope and encouragement for, XII. 234; XIV. 222.
Advice to, XII. 298; XX. 68, 203 _et seq._
Eligibility of, to Congress, XVI. 255.
Other rights and duties of, XIX. 164.
Letter to, on Presidential election of 1872, XX. 173.
Equal rights of, in normal schools, XX. 268.

Colored Persons, refusal to, of right of petition, VI. 288.
Free, are citizens of United States, VI. 291;
precedents and illustrations proving same, VI. 291-293.
Services of, in American wars, VI. 295; IX. 213 _et seq._; X. 141;
XIII. 287.
Petitions from, formerly presented, VI. 298.
Testimony of, in District of Columbia, VIII. 304;
in proceedings for confiscation and emancipation, VIII. 364,--and
in U. S. courts, IX. 152; XI. 1, 389.
Should enlist, IX. 325.
Reënslavement of, threatened, X. 217-219.
Opening of street-cars to, X. 323; XV. 222.
Testimony of American States and European countries to rights of,
before 1789, XII. 144-177.
Impartial jurors for, XIII. 10.
Equal rights of, to be protected by national courts, XIII. 16.
Madison on rights of, XIII. 181 _et seq._
Their rights as freemen not violated by fathers of the Republic,
XIII. 196 _et seq._, 328.
Opinion of Attorney-General declaring them citizens of United States,
XIII. 278, 368.
Should be chosen on boards of registration in rebel States, XV. 220.
Opening of offices to, in District of Columbia, XV. 234.
Entitled to all the rights of American citizenship, XIX. 255.
Testimony of, to necessity of national legislation for equal civil
rights, XIX. 262, 265-272, 279-283, 284-286.
Their rights sacrificed, XIX. 319.
Retrospect and promise for, XX. 202.
See _Civil Rights_, _Colored Citizens_, _Equal Rights_, _Freedmen_,
and _Slaves_.

Colored Race, justice to the, XII. 300.
Self-sacrifice for, XII. 361.

Colored Schools, closing of, in North Carolina, IX. 112.
In Washington, XIX. 1.
See _Separate Schools_.

Colored Senators, predicted, XV. 220, 223.
Importance of, in settling question of equal rights, XVI. 257;
XVIII. 7.
The first one, XVIII. 6.

Colored Suffrage, at adoption of the Constitution, VI. 291-293; XII. 147.
Judicial decision on, in North Carolina, VI. 292; XI. 287; XII. 147;
XIII. 191.
In Montana, XI. 62.
In Washington, XI. 284.
No reconstruction without, XII. 179.
Necessity of, in rebel States, XII. 292-296, 298, 325, 327 _et seq._,
340; XIII. 129-136, 219-227; XIV. 210, 230; XVI. 347 _et seq._
In District of Columbia, XIII. 5; XIV. 229.
Sources of Congressional power to grant, XIII. 124, 211-213, 215-219,
324-335; XIV. 215 _et seq._; XV. 178-180, 230 _et seq._; XVII. 43-49,
101; XVIII. 3.
Alexander Hamilton on, XIII. 183 _et seq._, 329; XVI. 251; XVII. 45.
Early public acts of United States on, XIII. 188-190;
and of individual States, XIII. 190-194.
Testimony to need of, in rebel States, XIII. 344;
requirement of, in same, XIV. 289.
Should be prescribed throughout U. S. by Act of Congress, XV. 176, 229;
XVI. 1; XVII. 51, 101.
A constitutional amendment not proper to secure, XV. 177; XVII. 49-51.
Mr. Sumner’s personal record on, XVII. 303.

Colored Troops, employment of, IX. 262; XI. 211.
Equal pay of, X. 304.
Gov. Andrew on pay and enlistment of, X. 316 _et seq._
Opinion of Attorney-General on enlistment of, X. 321 _et seq._
Freedom of wives and children of, XII. 61.

Colors, regimental, no names of victories over fellow-citizens on, VIII.
361; XX. 255.

Combe, George, opinions of, on Pennsylvania system of prison discipline,
II. 126-128.

Commerce, in slave and free States, VI. 148 _et seq._

Commercial Relations, suspension of, an act of war, XVI. 299.

Committee on Foreign Relations, reports of, on San Juan boundary
question, VII. 216;
on draught of convention with Mexico, VIII. 227;
on claims on France for spoliations of commerce, XI. 70;
and on Chinese indemnity fund, XVIII. 115.
President Grant’s endeavor to change the, XVIII. 289.

Common Law, I. 270.
Its relation to enlistments by minors in United States, I. 371.
On the pardoning power, III. 224.
Favors liberty, III. 282, 358 (_see note_); VI. 225; X. 343 _et seq._
In America, III. 332.
May be employed to interpret the Constitution, III. 332; IX. 171; XIV.
7; XVI. 100.
Requires trial by jury for recovery of escaped villeins, III. 333;
X. 375,--authorities proving same, III. 333-337; X. 376.
Recognizes no distinction of color, according to Chief-Justice Holt,
XIX. 250.

Common Schools, equal rights in, III. 51; XIX. 3, 158, 165, 166, 241-244,
261; XX. 275.
Rights of colored children in, under Massachusetts laws, III. 66.
Must be open to all, III. 68, 95; XIX. 241, 261.
Establishment of, in Massachusetts, VII. 9; XII. 207; XIV. 337.
Early opposed in Virginia, VII. 11; XIV. 337.
Contributions of, for statue of Horace Mann, VII. 20.
Should be established in rebel States, XII. 328; XIV. 334-339; XV.
220-227.
A system of, irrespective of color, XX. 275.

Condorcet, his treatise on progress, II. 264.
On a slave-master, VI. 166.
On Franklin’s mission to Paris, X. 230.
On slavery, XII. 168.
On republican government, XIII. 199.

Confederation of the United States, formation and weakness of, X.
177-179; XVI. 29 _et seq._

Confiscation of property in war, IX. 35; XVII. 13-15.
Authorities respecting, IX. 36 _et seq._; XVII. 13-15.
Within national jurisdiction, IX. 38-40; XVII. 19-21, 25-27,--beyond
same, IX. 40-44.
History of, IX. 53-69;
especially in France, IX. 55-58;
and in Revolutionary War, IX. 59-69.
And emancipation, should be employed against Rebels, IX. 71, 74-77,
128.

Congregate System of prison discipline.
See _Auburn System_.

Congress, Mr. Sumner’s refusal to be a candidate for, I. 330.
Its power over armies, I. 354;
and over the militia, I. 354; IV. 21, 26-30.
Mr. Sumner accepts Free-Soil nomination for, II. 301.
Modes of preventing war discussed in, II. 406, 407.
Has no power to establish slavery, III. 276, 296, 299; VIII. 274,--or
to legislate concerning fugitives from service, III. 276, 297, 299,
318; XII. 12.
Actions of 1st, in regard to slavery, III. 293; IV. 121.
Provisions of Convention of 1787 for powers of, III. 319-324.
Cannot interfere with slavery in States, III. 326; IV. 121; VI. 376;
VII. 1; IX. 26.
Can prohibit slavery in Territories, IV. 125; VI. 233, 376; VII. 1.
Has sole power to abrogate treaties, V. 102, 112.
Can admit Kansas at once, V. 217.
Should overthrow usurpation in Kansas, V. 245.
Conduct of slave-masters in, VI. 196-211.
War-powers of, against slavery, VII. 258; IX. 45, 128; XI. 191.
Power of, over rebel States, VIII. 164-167, 245; IX. 120; X. 167; XI.
361; XII. 329; XIV. 209, 225; XV. 218; XVIII. 31,--sources of above
power, VIII. 164-167, 245; X. 208-213; XI. 367, 372; XII. 330-332;
XIII. 124-127, 325 _et seq._; XIV. 341; XVI. 344-347.
Can make Treasury notes a legal tender, VIII. 183-192.
Can abolish slavery in District of Columbia, VIII. 258, 281;
is responsible for same, VIII. 265, 280.
Can appropriate money to ransom slaves, VIII. 281.
Testimony to intervention of, for ransom of Algerine slaves, VIII.
286-291, 293-296.
Usage of, in enrolling bills, VIII. 372.
Should confiscate property and liberate slaves of Rebels, IX. 71, 146.
Achievements of 37th, IX. 144, 205.
Protests against final adjournments of, IX. 176; XI. 405; XIV. 348; XV.
172, 240.
Chancellor Kent on executive power of, X. 174; XI. 372.
Supremacy of, over States, X. 185-190.
Exclusion of colored testimony recognized by, XI. 3.
Its powers over slavery, XI. 190-195, 209; XII. 62-65.
Must determine readmission of rebel States, XI. 296, 361, 366-372.
Summer sessions of, XI. 405 _et seq._
Can ratify executive acts, XII. 71;
judicial decision proving same, XII. 71.
Judicial decisions on its power to regulate commerce between States,
XII. 113-117; XIV. 69.
Story on its power to establish post-roads, XII. 117, 120.
Power and duty of, to grant equal rights to colored persons, XIII.
124-127, 211-219, 324-337; XIV. 210, 215-218; XVI. 1, 61, 252; XVII.
34; XIX. 126-130, 232-234, 266, 272-284, 286.
Authorities respecting powers of, under the Constitution, XIII. 216,
273, 278; XVIII. 29; XIX. 277.
Power of, to counteract the cattle-plague, XIV. 49;
to provide against cholera from abroad, XIV. 59;
and to make a ship-canal at Niagara, XIV. 99.
The one-man power _vs._, XIV. 181.
Power of, to require free schools in rebel States, XIV. 340.
Powers of the two Houses of, in absence of a quorum, XV. 185.
President Johnson’s defiance of, XVI. 171.
Power of, to require conditions for admission of States, XVI. 235,
244; XVIII. 3-5,--objections to same refuted, XVI. 236-252.
Eligibility of colored citizens to, XVI. 255.
Judicial decisions on political powers of, XVI. 346.
Its treatment of claims for losses by Revolutionary War and War of
1812, XVII. 25-28.
Powers of, to prohibit inequality, caste, and oligarchy of the skin,
XVII. 34.
Admission of Virginia to representation in, XVII. 204.
Power and duty of, to protect Reconstruction, XVII. 208; XVIII. 26-32.
Not pledged by Reconstruction Acts to admit rebel States, XVII.
208-210, 224-226.
Power of, over national banks, XVII. 293-296.
Admission of Mississippi to representation in, XVIII. 1;
and of Georgia, XVIII. 23.

Congress, Continental, on object of the Revolution, III. 281; VI. 226;
XIII. 174; XVI. 31.
New governments arranged by, X. 204.
Testimony of, to rights of colored persons, XII. 148; XIII. 189.
Resolutions and addresses of, quoted, XIII. 170.
Debate in, on fisheries, XV. 162 _et seq._
Meeting of the, XVI. 26.

Congress of Nations, a substitute for war, I. 51; II. 414; III. 117.
Suggested by Henry IV. of France, II. 385; XVIII. 233.
Advocated by Grotius and others, II. 385,--by William Penn, II.
387,--by the Abbé Saint-Pierre, II. 388; XVIII. 233,--by Rousseau,
II. 391; XVIII. 233,--by German writers, especially Kant, II.
393-397; XVIII. 233-236,--by Bentham, II. 397,--by the Peace
Congress at Brussels, II. 403,--by the legislature of Massachusetts
and in Congress, II. 407,--and by M. Bouvet in France and Arnold
Ruge in Germany, II. 408.

Conkling, Roscoe, Senator from New York, letter of, indorsing Remington
and Sons, XX. 28.

Connecticut, valley of the, IX. 249.

Conscription, Mr. Monroe on, I. 355.
Exemption of clergymen from, IX. 303.

Conservatism, true, defined, II. 278, 289; III. 249.
False, II. 278.

Consols, should not be established in United States, XVII. 287.

Constitution of the United States, does not prevent abolition of slavery,
I. 310.
Amendments to, allowable, I. 311; III. 271.
Authors of, did not believe slavery would be perpetual, I. 311; II.
231; III. 16; VI. 314; XIII. 196,--their declarations against
slavery, I. 312; II. 230; III. 17, 277-280; VI. 227, 311; X. 356.
Foundation of the party of freedom, II. 228.
Opposed to Slave Power, II. 230.
Purpose and character of, as expressed by the preamble, II. 230; III.
276; VII. 38; X. 181, 345; XI. 187; XIII. 175, 304; XVI. 39.
Disarms separate States, II. 380.
Does not authorize slavery, III. 16, 276, 296; IV. 346; VI. 314; VII.
1; XI. 186-189, 196.
Rules for interpreting, III. 276-283, 332; IX. 80, 171; XIII. 219; XIV.
7; XVI. 57, 100; XIX. 233, 272 _et seq._, 308, 310.
Gives no power to Congress to establish slavery, III. 296; VIII. 274.
Original compromises of, III. 304; X. 354.
Clause in, on surrender of fugitives from service, III. 303, 356;
X. 341.
Must be obeyed by each public officer as he understands it, IV. 179,
269;
authorities declaring above rule, IV. 179-181, 269.
Power of the Supreme Court to interpret, IV. 270-272.
Interpretation of its clause on privileges of citizens, IV. 338-341;
XIX. 234, 279.
Its clause on revenue bills a compromise between large and small
States, V. 84;
interpretation of same, V. 87, 91.
On treaties, V. 101; XIX. 79.
Does not authorize slavery in Territories, V. 156; VI. 230, 338; X.
214; XI. 195.
Nowhere recognizes property in man, VI. 125, 223, 359; XI. 187.
Secures right of petition to the people, VI. 294.
The guide of United States citizens, VII. 7.
Proposed amendment to, in favor of slavery, VII. 174, 330.
Requires loyalty as a qualification for a Senator, VIII. 213; XVI.
74-76.
Sacredness of oath to support, VIII. 221.
Does not sanction slavery in District of Columbia, VIII. 265, 275.
Limitations of rights of sovereignty against criminals in, IX. 25-30.
Does not limit war-powers of Congress, IX. 45, 71, 131-138, 183-185,
216.
Opposition to its adoption, X. 182; XIII. 305; XVI. 41.
Sources of power over slavery in, XI. 190-196.
Its provisions for supremacy of national government, XVI. 39.
Does not recognize any distinction of color, XVI. 249; XVII. 42; XVIII.
159; XIX. 249.
Its allotment of the war-power, XIX. 76.
All statutes and legislation must conform to, XIX. 254.
Story on its prohibition of interference with religion, XIX. 292.
Does not forbid requirement of equal rights in churches, XIX. 293-299.
Contrasted with the Declaration of Independence, XIX. 305, 308.

Constitutional Amendment defending liberty, protects all, III. 298; VIII.
277; XI. 193-195.
Abolishing slavery, XI. 211 _et seq._;
form of same considered, XI. 216-227; XIV. 235-238.
Rebel States not needed to ratify a, XII. 101, 181, 341, 359; XIII. 31,
62; XVI. 71.
Quorum of States necessary in adoption of a, XII. 357;
Bishop on meaning of above rule, XII. 359; XVI. 71.
Abolishing slavery, adoption of, XIII. 30;
enforcement of same, XIII. 113, 215-218, 273-276, 310, 333-335;
XVII. 46; XIX. 232, 275-278.
Not proper to secure colored suffrage, XV. 177; XVII. 49-51.
Withdrawal of assent to a, by a State, XVI. 69.
See _Blaine Amendment_, _Fifteenth Amendment_, and _Fourteenth
Amendment_.

Consular Pupils, XI. 49.

Consuls, VIII. 325; XI. 52.
Authorities respecting, VIII. 326, 330.

Contraband of War, despatches included in, by English authorities, VIII.
64, 67,--but not by American or all Continental authorities,
VIII. 64-66.
American rules in regard to, VIII. 68-71.
Should be abolished, VIII. 78.

Convention, National, of 1787, declarations on slavery in, III. 17,
277-279; VI. 227, 313; X. 356.
Meeting and early labors of, III. 306; XVI. 35.
Provides for surrender of fugitives from service, III. 308; X. 354.
Its provisions for the powers of Congress, III. 319-324.
Did not empower Congress to legislate for surrender of fugitives from
service, III. 323.
Debates in, on origination of money bills, V. 84-87, 88 _et seq._;
on paper money, VIII. 185;
on taxing slaves, IX. 94.
Object of, X. 179, 180; XVI. 41.
Discussion of State rights in, X. 183 _et seq._; XII. 125; XIII. 305;
XVI. 37 _et seq._
Debates in, on guaranty of republican government, XIII. 140;
on establishment of national government, XVI. 36-38;
on suspension of the President, XVI. 91,--and on equality of States,
XVI. 238-240.
Story on same, XVI. 241.

Conventions, political, obligations imposed by, XX. 170.

Conveyances, public, open to all by law, XIX. 238.
Authorities proving same, XIX. 238-240.

Conway, Martin F., letter to, VI. 40.

Coolie Trade, denunciation of the, XIV. 262.

Cooper, J. Fenimore, the novelist, III. 213.

Coquerel, Athanase, XIX. 159.

Coquerel, Athanase, _fils_, XIX. 159.

Cotton, cultivation of, favorable to slavery, VI. 314; VII. 322.
Tax on, IX. 84.

Court, different meanings of the word, XVI. 137 _et seq._

Courts, mixed, defence of, VIII. 345-347.
See _Prize Courts_.

Covode, John, Representative from Pennsylvania, speech on death of,
XIX. 12.

Cowley, Abraham, XV. 265.
His prophecy concerning America, XV. 267.

Crete, sympathy with, XV. 246.

Crime against Kansas, the, V. 125.
Threatens war, V. 140.
Slave Power the author of, V. 142.
Its origin and extent, V. 151-184.
Apologies for, refuted, V. 184-207.
Remedies proposed for, V. 207-217.
Public opinion aroused against, V. 245.
Appendix to speech on, V. 257.

Crittenden Compromise, incidents and notes on the, VII. 169-185.
Its purport, VII. 169-171, 201 _et seq._, 330.
Speech on a Massachusetts petition in favor of, VII. 200.
Condemned, VII. 201, 214.

Crittenden Resolution, VII. 231; XI. 440.

Cromwell, sends expedition against Barbary States, II. 29.
Intervention of, for Continental Protestants, X. 58-61.

Cuba, duty of Spain toward, XVII. 118-120.
Duty of United States concerning, XVII. 120-124.
Belligerency of, XVII. 122, 195.

Curran, John P., on freedom of fugitive slaves in England, IV. 314.

Currency, the national banks and the, XI. 245.
Benefits of an improved, XI. 254, 258.
Circulation of, in 1860 and in 1867, XVI. 291.
Inflation of, XVI. 292.
Contraction of, XVI. 293; XVII. 268.
Remarks on the, XVII. 184.
Redistribution of, XVII. 254.
Compound-interest notes for, XVII. 257-259.
Need of simplifying, by withdrawing greenbacks and making bank-notes
convertible, XVII. 260, 270-277.

Custom-house Oaths, abolition of, VI. 95.
Character of, VIII. 222.

Dane, Nathan, founds professorship in Harvard Law School, III. 108.
Author of Ordinance of Freedom in Northwest Territory, III. 254.
On State rights, X. 185; XII. 125.

Darien, isthmus of, a ship-canal through the, XIV. 124.

Davenant, Charles, XV. 270.
His prophecy concerning America, XV. 273.

Davis, Garrett, Senator from Kentucky, remarks on death of, XX. 261.

Davis, Henry Winter, obituary notice of, XIII. 104.
Tribute of colored persons to, XIII. 107 _et seq._

Davis, Jefferson, his definition of slavery, VI. 122, 136.
Defends duelling, VI. 201.
The chief of the Rebellion, VIII 123.
On fugitive slaves, X. 391.
On the national government, XII. 259.
On beginning of the Civil War, XII. 264.
Trial of, XIII. 111.
On the doctrine of equality, XIX. 224.

Debate, limitations of, in Senate, VIII. 155.

Debt, public, of European nations before 1845, I. 72.
Of Great Britain in 1842, I. 73.
See _National Debt_ and _Rebel Debt_.

Decatur, Stephen, frees slaves in Algiers, II. 75; VIII. 297.

Declaration of Independence, foundation of the party of freedom, II. 228,
237.
Be true to the, III. 1.
Declares all men equal, III. 15, 64, 281; VI. 226; XII. 240; XIII. 173,
299; XVIII. 152; XIX. 308.
Declares equality in rights only, III. 65; IV. 97; XIX. 301.
And the Constitution, our two title-deeds, III. 165; XVI. 55; XVIII.
159.
Must be employed to interpret the Constitution, III. 281; XIII. 219;
XVI. 57; XIX. 273, 308, 310; XX. 69.
On source of authority of government, V. 232.
The first declaration of human rights, VI. 363; VII. 50.
Its limitations on popular sovereignty, VI. 364; VII. 52; XVII. 218.
The guide of United States citizens, VII. 7.
Assaults upon, VII. 54; XIX. 300-303.
J. Q. Adams on, VII. 55-57.
Promises of the, XII. 235, 239, 297; XIII. 173.
Lincoln on, XII. 249, 251-257, 260; XVIII. 165-168; XIX. 224-226, 302.
Stephen A. Douglas on, XII. 250, 251, 252; XVIII. 164; XIX. 302.
Promises of, must be fulfilled, XII. 296; XIII. 128; XVI. 363; XVII.
220; XVIII. 161.
It made a new nation, XVI. 27.
Recognizes no distinction of color, XVI. 247; XVII. 43; XVIII. 152,
159; XIX. 249.
Degraded by limitations on equal rights, XIX. 223.
All statutes and legislation must conform to, XIX. 254.
Its importance defended, XIX. 304-309.
Bancroft on, XIX. 305, 306.
John Adams on celebration of, XIX. 306.

De Foe, on America, XV. 274 _et seq._

Democracy, Mr. Sumner’s belief in, III. 268.

Democratic Party, influenced by Slave Power, II. 293; VI. 328.
Rejects Wilmot Proviso in 1848, II. 293.
Not opposed to slavery, IV. 265; V. 73.
And Republican Party, XI. 418.
In 1864, XI. 423.
Its support of slavery, XI. 424.
Platform of, in 1864, XI. 427, 478.
Proposes to acknowledge Slave Power, XI. 465.
Frauds committed by, XII. 3.
In 1868, the Rebel party, XVI. 327, 340.
Leaders of, XVI. 328.
Opposed to equal rights for freedmen, XVII. 102; XVIII. 171.
A party of repudiation, XVII. 104.
Dangers from its attaining power, XVIII. 255.
Its position in 1872, XX. 170, 250.
Its support of Greeley, XX. 184 _et seq._, 192, 197, 212, 242-246, 248.
Its fidelity to Republican principles in 1872, XX. 242;
testimony to same, XX. 243-245;
motives for same, XX. 246-249.

Denmark, navy of, in 1837, I. 76.
Adopts separate system in prisons, II. 135.
Treaty of, with United States illegally abrogated in 1855, V. 100.
Power of Congress to terminate same, recognized by Mr. Buchanan,
V. 119.

Descartes, on progress in science, II. 257.

Diplomatic Representatives, rank of, abroad, XIV. 74.
Prohibition of uniform for, XIV. 344.
Must not accept gifts from foreign powers, XX. 70.

Disabilities, delay in removal of, XIV. 85.

Disarmament, advantages of, I. 119-121,--especially for France in 1870,
XVIII. 223-229.

Disfranchisement, inconsistent with Republican government, XIII. 109.

District of Columbia, abolition of slavery in, demanded, I. 308, 337;
III. 139,--but not by national Whig Party, II. 308.
Slave-trade in, abolished, III. 125.
Laws of Maryland adopted in, III. 221; VIII. 271.
Slavery and the black code in, VII. 361.
Mr. Sumner’s speech on bill for abolition of slavery in, VIII. 251.
Power of Congress to abolish slavery in, VIII. 258, 281.
Masters in, not properly entitled to compensation, VIII. 259.
Congress responsible for slavery in, VIII. 265, 280.
Slavery in, unconstitutional, VIII. 265, 274-278;
authorities maintaining same, VIII. 266.
Account of establishment of seat of government in, VIII. 267-271.
Laws of, on slavery, VIII. 272, 304.
Money appropriation advisable to ransom slaves in, VIII. 280, 299.
Testimony of colored persons in, VIII. 304.
Enforcement of emancipation in, VIII. 349.
Slaves cannot be surrendered in, IX. 79.
Colored suffrage in, XIII. 5; XIV. 229,--the whites _vs._ same,
XIII. 98.
Opening of offices to colored persons in, XV. 234.
Exclusion of colored physicians from Medical Society of, XVII. 186;
XVIII. 148.
Letter for celebration of anniversary of emancipation in, XX. 266.
Origin of reforms for colored persons in, XX. 276.

Disunion, threat of, by slave States, VII. 25, 319-321.
Absurdity of as a remedy, VII. 33.
Difficulty of accomplishing, VII. 34.
Effects of, on slave States, VII. 35-37.
And a Southern confederacy, VII. 165.

Dix, Miss D. L., her book on prison discipline, I. 163.
Labors of, I. 164.
Advocates separate system in prisons, I. 178.

Domestic Relations, our, article on, X. 167.

Dominica, diplomatic relations with the republic of, XIII. 270.
See _San Domingo_.

Doubtful Clauses, authorities on interpretation of, III. 282, 358;
X. 342-346.

Douglas, Stephen A., compared to Sancho Panza, V. 149.
Threats of, replied to, V. 150, 242.
His bill for admission of Kansas condemned, V. 212-215.
His attacks answered, V. 251-255.
Pretended principles of the party supporting, in 1860, VI. 362.
His insincerity in professing popular sovereignty, VI. 367-369; VII.
44, 62;
his inconsistency as to same, VI. 370-373.
His associates, VI. 373.
His heartlessness, VI. 374.
His contest with Lincoln, XII. 247,--extracts from his speeches in
same, XII. 249-253; XVIII. 164; XIX. 302.

Douglass, Frederick, insults to, XIX. 165, 220; XX. 155 _et seq._, 181,
205-208.
And President Grant, XX. 205.

Downing, Andrew J., the landscape Gardener, IV. 1.

Downing, George T., article by, quoted, XIX. 279-283.

Draft, commutation for the, X. 262.
Burden of, should be equalized, X. 264.

Drayton and Sayres, proceedings against, for liberating slaves, III.
221-223.
Alternatives of pardon for, III. 231-233.

Dred Scott Decision, VI. 291; IX. 154; XI. 63-65; XIII. 276; XVIII. 7.
No bust for author of, XII. 138; XVI. 223.
False statements in, XII. 140;
refutation of same, XII. 141, 144-177.
Opinion of Judge Curtis on, quoted, XII. 147.
On rights of citizenship, XIII. 331; XVII. 46.

Duel, the, defined, I. 294.
Denounced, VI. 183, 184.
Franklin on, VI. 183.
Adopted by slave-masters, VI. 183, 199-202.
Between France and Germany, XVIII. 175.
Derivation of, XVIII. 177.

Dunn, Oscar J., insult to, on the railroad, XIX. 165, 221.
Character of, XIX. 221.

Eagle, escutcheon of the United States, I. 95.
Described by Erasmus, I. 95.

Edmunds, George F., Senator from Vermont, answer to his criticisms on
supplementary civil-rights bill, XX. 307-311.

Education, establishments of, in slave and free States, VI. 151-156.
No tax on, XI. 378; XIV. 267.
The department of, XIV. 297.
Generosity for, XIV. 317.
Indispensable in a republic, XIV. 336; XVIII. 47.
Power of Congress to prescribe, in rebel States, XIV. 340.
Reduction of appropriation for bureau of, XVIII. 47.

Elections, powers of States over, XIII. 214; XVI. 246-252; XVII. 39-42.
Of Senators, XIV. 1, 105.
Rules for, in England, XIV. 8, 106;
Cushing on same, XIV. 9.
Rules for, in United States, XIV. 9, 107;
Cushing on same, XIV. 10.
Secret voting at popular, XIV. 105.

Eloquence, defined, I. 297.

Emancipation, of slaves in West Indies by England, I. 127; V. 28-30;
VI. 343.
Desirable in United States, I. 127.
Channing’s address on, I. 298; VI. 185.
Our best weapon, VII. 241, 347; IX. 76, 229; XI. 198.
Of national government from Slave Power, VII. 248.
Instances of, in war, VII. 253-255, 257.
Modes of, in Roman law, VII. 255.
Present modes of accomplishing, VII. 256, 258.
Of serfs in Russia, VII. 267; XII. 312, 314; XIII. 57-60; XIV. 57, 315.
Appendix to speech on, VII. 270.
And the President, VII. 271 (_Appendix_); VIII. 14; IX. 117 _et seq._;
XII. 282.
The third great epoch in American history, VII. 312.
Instructions of Secretary of War tending towards, VII. 348.
Military necessity of, VII. 350; IX. 206.
And Reconstruction, VIII. 163.
State suicide and, VIII. 243.
Enforcement of, in District of Columbia, VIII. 349.
Patriotic unity and, IX. 180.
Harmony with the President, and, IX. 182.
A war measure, IX. 233, 253, 273.
Celebration of, IX. 256; XIV. 41.
Immediate, and not gradual, IX. 266.
Must be universal, X. 298, 302;
petition for same, X. 300.
Universal, without compensation, XI. 173.
Pope Gregory the Great on, XI. 203.
In District of Columbia, letter for anniversary of, XX. 266.
See _Antislavery Enterprise_ and _Proclamation of Emancipation_.

Emblems and mottoes, encourage war, I. 93.

Emigrant Aid Company of Massachusetts, vindicated, V. 122, 194-205.
Not an Abolition Society, V. 199;
testimony to same, V. 200.
Its secret, V. 201.

Emigration, to Kansas, IV. 138; V. 121, 159, 194-205; VI. 368.
Organization in, V. 195.
Influence of slavery on, VI. 158.

England, slave-trade in, II. 18; XVII. 166.
Sends expeditions against Barbary States, II. 26-30, 77-80; VIII. 297;
X. 72.
Slavery in, III. 301; VIII. 278;
same annulled, III. 302; IV. 313; VIII. 279.
Confiscation in, IX. 55.
Actions and criticisms of, unfriendly to United States during
Rebellion, X. 12-41, 124; XII. 267; XVII. 58-73, 84, 124.
Liability of, for damages to United States commerce by pirate ships,
X. 37-39; XVII. 89.
Her growth into a nation, XVI. 16.
Individual and national claims on, XVII. 53, 124.
Reparation due from, to United States, for aid to Rebels, XVII. 76,
125-127.
Her treatment of United States claims for reparation, XVII. 91.
Original degradation of, XVII. 164-167.
See _Great Britain_.

English Language, predictions of its extension, XV. 312, 314.

Engravers of Portraits:
Dürer, XIX. 181.
A. Caracci, XIX. 182.
Goltzius, Pontius, and Rembrandt, XIX. 183.
Visscher and Van Dyck, XIX. 184.
Mellan, XIX. 185.
Morin and Masson, XIX. 186.
Nanteuil, XIX. 187.
Edelinck, XIX. 191-193.
Drevet, XIX. 193 _et seq._
Ficquet, Schmidt, and Wille, XIX. 195-197.
Longhi, XIX. 197.
Raffaello Morghen, XIX. 198.
Houbraken and Bartolozzi, XIX. 199.
Strange, XIX. 200.
Sharp, XIX. 201.

Engraving, the best portraits in, XIX. 175.
Its relation to painting, XIX. 179.
Longhi on same, XIX. 179.
Great French School of, XIX. 185-194.

Episcopal Church of America, befriended by Granville Sharp, IV. 318.

Equal Rights, in the lecture-room, I. 160.
In common schools, III. 51; XIX. 3, 158, 165, 166, 241-244, 261; XX.
275.
And the Emancipation Proclamation, XII. 60.
Necessity of guaranties for, XII. 310.
Secured to freed serfs in Russia, XII. 312-314; XIII. 58-60; XIV. 57,
211.
_Vs._ the Presidential policy in reconstruction, XII. 368.
Scheme of Reconstruction on basis of, XIII. 21.
Of all, speech on, XIII. 115.
The great guaranty, XIII. 124.
A condition of Reconstruction, XIV. 92; XVI. 347.
Whether political or civil, by Act of Congress, XVI. 1.
Folly of reasons for denial of, XVI. 332.
Must be under a uniform law, XVIII. 2; XIX. 128, 234; XX. 69.
Further measures required to secure, XVIII. 21, 45, 317; XIX. 158-164,
166; XX. 203, 267.
No reconciliation without, XIX. 215, 259, 263.
Limitations on, a denial of the Declaration of Independence, XIX. 223.
Not a question of Society, XIX. 227.
In hotels, XIX. 236;
in public conveyances, XIX. 238;
in theatres, XIX. 240;
in other public institutions, churches, and cemeteries, XIX. 244,
292-299.
Argument against, XIX. 246.
On juries, XIX. 290.
In normal schools, XX. 268.
See _Civil Rights_ and _Equality_.

Equality before the law, III. 51; XI. 217.
Misunderstood by Brougham and Calhoun, III. 55.
Origin and growth of the sentiment of, III. 56.
Proclaimed in France by literature and constitutions, III. 58-63;
XI. 218-221; XIII. 198-202,--declared in other European countries,
III. 63; XI. 221.
Greek word for, III. 63; XI. 222.
Proclaimed by Declaration of Independence and Constitution of
Massachusetts, III. 64.
Defined, III. 65; IV. 48; XVI. 331; XIX. 219.
Recognized by Massachusetts laws for common schools, III. 66;
and by courts of same, III. 69.
Violated by separate colored schools, III. 70; XIX. 241.
Equivalents no substitute for, III. 88; XIX. 3, 158, 165, 229.
American representative system founded on, IV. 38.
Of States, does not allow transportation of slaves into Territories,
VI. 229.
Of men, a self-evident truth, VI. 338; XIII. 235.
La Boëtie and Maine on, XI. 224.
Political, without distinction of color, XIII. 282.
In rights, must be complete, XIV. 41; XVI. 331; XIX. 219, 316; XX. 68.
Before the law, protected by national statute, XIX. 203.
In rights, the real issue of the war, XIX. 223;
testimony to same, XIX. 224-226.

Equity, definitions of, XVIII. 36.

Erasmus, his description of an eagle, I. 95.
On his own character, I. 250.
His application of Latin proverb on Scylla and Charybdis, XII. 377-379.
On uncleanness of English houses, XVII. 167.
Portraits of, XIX. 181.

Europe, public debt of, before 1845, I. 72.
Expenses of war-preparations of, before 1850, I. 75; II. 368.
Tendency of, towards unity, II. 381-383.
Sympathies of, in our Civil War, not to be repelled, VII. 236.
Policy of, on rights of neutral ships, VIII. 63, 66.
Intervention of, in wars for freedom, X. 9.
Tends towards Republicanism, XVIII. 251.
Lafayette’s prophecy of enfranchisement of, XVIII. 252.

Everett, Edward, nomination of, for Vice-President in 1860, VI. 358.
Urges compromise in 1861, VII. 176.
Supports Lincoln in 1864, XI. 418.
The late, XII. 68.
On retaliation, XII. 86.

Exhibition, Industrial, at London in 1862, representation of United
States at, VIII. 157.

Exmouth, Lord, expeditions of, against Algiers, II. 77-80; VIII. 297;
X. 72.
Orders of, quoted, II. 77, 80; X. 73.
Despatch of, quoted, II. 81; VIII. 298; X. 73.

Faculties, all the, should be cultivated, I. 208.

Fame, Allston’s definition of, I. 283.
Oration on, II. 153.
In antiquity, II. 162.
See _Glory_.

Fanaticism, good and bad, defined, V. 146-148.

Faneuil Hall, IV. 163; VII. 70.

Farmer, the good, and the good citizen, IV. 280.

Farmers of Hampshire Co., Massachusetts, speech at dinner of, IX. 248.
Liberal sentiments of, IX. 252.

“Federal,” should not be applied to government, constitution, courts or
army of United States, XVI. 8 _et seq._

Fellow-citizens, German, and a true Reconstruction, VIII. 239.
No names of victories over, on regimental colors, VIII. 361; XX. 255.
No picture at the Capitol of victory over, XII. 201.

Female Suffrage, XIV. 228.

Fessenden, William Pitt, Senator from Maine, reply to, on limitation of
Senate business and obligations of caucuses, XV. 205-209, 213
_et seq._
Remarks on death of, XVII. 189.

“Fiat justitia, ruat cœlum,” origin of phrase, IV. 310 (and _note_), 311.

Field, Cyrus W., XIV. 220.
Speech on a resolution giving thanks of Congress to, XIV. 301.

Fifteenth Amendment, ratification of the, XVIII. 20.

Financial Reconstruction, through public faith and specie payments, XVI.
259; XVII. 234.
Depends on political, XVI. 264-266, 294, 355.
Means of, XVI. 278-281; XVII. 237-241, 279-281.
Propositions of Secretary of Treasury for, considered, XVII. 241-244.
Consideration of Mr. Sumner’s bill for, XVII. 245-253, 279 _et seq._;
and of bill from Committee of Finance for, XVII. 255-260, 264,
266-270.
Substitute for latter explained, XVII. 260 _et seq._, 264-266, 273-277.
Substitute of Finance Committee for Mr. Sumner’s bill considered,
XVII. 281-298.

Fish, Hamilton, Secretary of State, personal relations of Mr. Sumner
with, XIX. 99, 106-124.
His interest in annexation of San Domingo, XIX. 107.
His removal of Mr. Motley, XIX. 109;
his paper on same, XIX. 109-112;
quotation from above paper, XIX. 110;
inconsistencies in same, XIX. 115-117.

Fisheries, Canadian, XII. 48.
Of Russian America, XV. 141-161.
Influence of, XV. 161-165.
Growth of, in United States, XV. 162, 165.
R. Izard on, XV. 163.

Five-Twenties (bonds), payment of, XVII. 245-247.

Flag, the national, the emblem of union for freedom, III. 238; XVI.
43,--history of same, XVI. 43-45.

Florida, memorial of, for admission into the Union, quoted, V. 220.

Florida, the, case of, XII. 9.

Fontenelle, on progress, II. 260.

Foot, Solomon, Senator from Vermont, speech on death of, XIV. 33.

Foreign Relations, prudence in our, IX. 257.
Speech on, in New York, in 1863, IX. 327.
Principles to be observed in, XVII. 117; XVIII. 253.
See _Com. on Foreign Relations_.

Foreigners, in ancient and modern times, V. 77.
In United States, V. 77.
Our duty to welcome, V. 78; XVII. 183.
Services of, in United States and Europe, V. 78-80.
Indifference of Mr. Sumner to, denied, XVI. 315-317.
Rights of naturalized, in their native countries, to be determined by
international law, XVI. 317.

Forney, John W., remarks at a dinner to, XVIII. 310.

Forts, no surrender of the Northern, VII. 200.

Foster, Lafayette S., Senator from Connecticut, remarks of, on testimony
of colored persons, answered, IX. 157-161.

Fourteenth Amendment, withdrawal of assent to, by Ohio, XVI. 69.

Fourth of July, oration on true grandeur of nations, I. 1.
Letters for celebration of, at Boston in 1851, 1852, 1853, 1854, and
1865, III. 165, 238; IV. 32, 228; XII. 297.

Fox, Charles James, on the American War, I. 343 _et seq._, 348.
On weakness of temporizing, VII. 332.
On war with America, XV. 407.

Fox, George, intercedes for Quaker slaves in Algiers, II. 35.

France, army of, in 1845, I. 75;
and in 1870, XVIII. 195.
Navy of, in 1837, I. 76;
and in 1870, XVIII. 195.
Fortifications and militia of, I. 77.
Relative expenditure of, for war-preparations, I. 78.
Efforts of, to free white slaves in Algiers, II. 31.
Favors separate system in prisons, II. 133-135, 146.
Equality developed and proclaimed in, by its literature and
constitutions, III. 58-63; XI. 218-221; XIII. 198-202.
Abrogation of its treaties with United States in 1798, V. 104;
debate in Congress on same, quoted, V. 105.
Alliance of, with American colonies, VII. 118.
Revolution of 1789 in, VII. 131;
same brought about by few persons, VII. 336.
Testimony of government of, to rights of neutral ships, VIII. 63, 70.
Paper money in, VIII. 194, 204; XVI. 359.
Confiscation in, IX. 55-58.
Unfriendly actions of, to United States during our Civil War, X. 41-47;
X. 256.
Recognition of United States by, X. 89; XI. 97.
Claims on, for spoliations of American commerce before July 31, 1801,
XI. 70.
Origin and history of counter-claims of, XI. 96-113;
adjustment of same with United States, XI. 113-123.
Mints in, XI. 264.
Slavery condemned by law and literature of, XII. 162-169.
Testimony of, to republican government, XIII. 198-202.
Its growth into a nation, XVI. 17.
Instance of barbarous manners in, XVII. 168.
And Germany, the duel between, XVIII. 175.
Resources of, in 1870, XVIII. 194.
Had no right to interfere with Spain, XVIII. 198.
Foolish causes of certain wars of, XVIII. 202.
Instances of capture of sovereigns of, XVIII. 206-208.
Retribution upon, XVIII. 213.
Dismemberment of, XVIII. 219;
reasons against same, XVIII. 220-222;
authorities against same, XVIII. 221 _et seq._
Advantages of disarmament of, XVIII. 223-229.
Charity to, XVIII. 319.
Obligations of United States to, XVIII. 319.
Annexation of Nice and Savoy to, XIX. 30.
Peace and the republic for, XIX. 159.
Numerical size of its Assembly, XX. 2.
Sale of arms to, by U. S. in Franco-Prussian war, XX. 5;
testimony showing need of inquiry into same, XX. 25-40.

Franco-German War, a duel, XVIII. 177.
Proper adjustment of, XVIII. 183.
Origin and pretexts of, XVIII. 183-191.
Debates in French Chamber previous to, XVIII. 184 _et seq._, 187-190.
Declared, XVIII. 192 _et seq._
Folly of, XVIII. 196.
True reason of, XVIII. 200.
Progress and character of, XVIII. 203-206.
Should have ended at Sedan, XVIII. 216.
Three essential conditions of peace after, XVIII. 216, 217.
Publicity of, XVIII. 243.
Testimony to horrors of, XVIII. 245.

Frankfort, Penitentiary Congress at, II. 245, 402.

Franking, abolition of, XVIII. 57.
In England, XVIII. 57, 61.
In United States, XVIII. 58.
Substitute for, XVIII. 59.
Origin of, in England, XVIII. 64-66;
abolition of, in same, XVIII. 76.

Franklin, Benjamin, industry of, I. 188.
Worldly wisdom of, I. 189.
Petitions for abolition of slavery, I. 312; II. 68, 231, 294; III. 17,
293; VI. 203.
Letter of, to Mr. Strahan, quoted, I. 382.
His apologue on Algerine slavery, II. 68; VI. 203.
On war, II. 398; XX. 80,--his labors against same, II. 398.
On duels, VI. 183.
On compensation to loyalists, IX. 66.
And John Slidell at Paris, X. 221.
Origin and history of the Latin verse applied to, X. 222-225, 233-237,
242, 248-252.
Portraits of, in France, with Latin motto, X. 242-246.
Translations of Latin verse on, X. 252-255;
letter of, on same, X. 253.
On republican government, XIII. 176, 299.
His friendship with Bishop Shipley, XV. 332.
On the colonial post-office, XVIII. 67.

Frederick II., of Prussia, on invoking God in war, I. 56.
On effect of his standing army, II. 370; XVIII. 226;
testimony of Lafayette to same, XVIII. 227.

Free Banking, objections to, XVII. 259 _et seq._

Free-Soil Conventions, speeches at, III. 4; IV. 3.
Address adopted by, in 1849, III. 6.
Letter to, in 1852, III. 240.

Free-Soil Party, importance of its organization, II. 299.
Principles of, II. 307; III. 26-29, 138, 153.
Appeal for, II. 316.
Explained and vindicated, III. 6.
A national party, III. 8-10.
Does not interfere with slavery in the States, III. 27, 48, 139, 141.
Necessary, III. 32.
Objections to, refuted, III. 34-41, 141.
Demands of, III. 139.

Freedmen, special committee on slavery and, X. 271.
Necessity of caring for, XI. 302-327; XVIII. 301.
Testimony to their desire for work, XI. 303-305.
Classes of, XI. 311.
Dangers of, XI. 315; XII. 321; XVII. 102,--testimony to same, XI. 344
_et seq._; XII. 323; XIII. 66-96; XVI. 350 _et seq._
Guaranties for, XII. 305, 325-329.
Colonization for, XII. 334.
Enfranchisement and protection of, XIII. 55.
Kidnapping of, XIII. 101.
Home-steads for, XIV. 307-309; XV. 188.

Freedmen’s Bureau, creation of the, XI. 301.
Location of, XI. 307, 315, 321-323, 341 _et seq._;
authorities on same, XI. 312-314.
Despoiled by President Johnson, XVI. 169.

Freedom, the party of, II. 228, 291; IV. 3.
Whigs and Democrats must unite to defend, II. 234, 238.
Principles of party of, II. 297; IV. 8.
A last rally for, II. 320.
Our country on the side of, without belligerent intervention, III. 180.
Is national, III. 237, 242, 274; VI. 361.
National, slavery sectional: speech, III. 257.
Whig and Democratic parties opposed to, IV. 5.
Prospects of party of, IV. 9.
Necessity of union to uphold, IV. 15.
The landmark of, IV. 81.
Hope for, in United States, IV. 148.
The demands of, IV. 333.
Unity for, IX. 316.

Friends, Society of, in New England, petitions for repeal of Fugitive
Slave Bill, III. 234.
See _Quakers_.

Fugitive Clause in the Constitution, III. 303, 356; X. 341.
False assumptions as to origin of, III. 303-306; X. 352-354.
True origin of, III. 306-309; X. 354-360.
Neglected at first, III. 309 _et seq._
Merely a compact between States, III. 356-358; X. 366-368.
Interpretation of, III. 358-361; IV. 182; VI. 229; X. 342-352; XI.
234-238.
Granville Sharp on, IV. 319 _et seq._
Ambiguity of, X. 346.
Applicable to indented servants, X. 348.
Authorities denying power of Congress under, X. 368-372.

Fugitive Slave Acts, wrong and unconstitutionality of, X. 338.
Relation of, to slavery, X. 339-341.
Final repeal of all, XI. 229.

Fugitive Slave Bill, denounced, III. 127, 312; IV. 162, 342; V. 44; VII.
3; X. 394; XI. 239.
Unconstitutional, III. 128, 312 _et seq._; IV. 162, 342; X. 360, 384.
Mr. Sumner’s relation to, III. 132.
Appeal against its execution, III. 134-137.
Presentation of a memorial against, III. 234.
Attempt to discuss, III. 243.
Speeches for repeal of, III. 257; IV. 333; XI. 229.
Difficulties of discussing, III. 267.
A usurpation by Congress and a breach of State rights, III. 326; IV.
163, 214, 337; X. 364-372.
Its denial of trial by Jury unconstitutional, III. 328-338; IV. 162;
X. 372-380.
Compared to Stamp Act, III. 339; IV. 165.
Public sentiment of free States opposed to, III. 346; IV. 348.
Consequences of, III. 349-351; X. 385-390.
Favored by Mercantile interest, III. 351.
Substitute for, III. 356-361.
Must be disobeyed, III. 364; IV. 282; V. 46; VII. 3.
Speeches on Boston petition for repeal of, IV. 159, 172.
Authors of, IV. 213; X. 390-393.
Peaceful opposition to, IV. 228.
No pension for service in support of, IV. 230.
Struggle for repeal of, IV. 239.
Compared to Massachusetts law against witchcraft, IV. 276.
Legislation of States in regard to, defended, IV. 243-245.
No recognition of, VIII. 238-240.
Origin of, X. 363.
Webster on, X. 370.
Not necessary, X. 391.
Humboldt on, XI. 240.

Fugitive Slaves, entitled to trial by jury, III. 328; IV. 215; X.
373,--authorities proving same, according to the Constitution and
common law, III. 330-338; X. 374-377.
Defended by Granville Sharp, IV. 297-313; VIII. 279; XI. 237,--opinion
of same on laws for surrender of, IV. 319.
Instructions of Secretary of War in favor of, VII. 348.
Conduct of our generals towards, in the Civil War, VII. 359; VIII. 8
_et seq._, 351.
The national armies and, VIII. 7.
No surrender of, in Washington, IX. 78.
Objections to trial by jury for, X. 377-380.
Commissioners for trial of, X. 381-384.
Heroism of, XVII. 172.

Fugitives from service, Act of 1793 for surrender of, III. 310, 315; X.
361,--opposition to same, III. 311; X. 361-363,--Judge Story’s
decision on same, III. 315 _et seq._; XI. 233.
See _Fugitive Clause_ and _Fugitive Slaves_.

Funding Bills, speeches on, XVI. 259; XVII. 234.
Described, XVI. 281-284; XVII. 245-249.

Galiani, Ferdinando, Abbé, prophecies of, concerning America, X. 234;
XV. 361 _et seq._
Character and works of, XV. 359-361.

Garrison, William Lloyd, reward offered by Georgia for arrest of, VI.
191 _et seq._
Letter to, VI. 343.

Genoa, siege of, in 1800, I. 26-29.

Georgia, admission of, to representation in Congress, XVIII. 23;
condition of, in 1870, XVIII. 25.
Bingham amendment to Act for, XVIII. 26.
Powers of Congress over, XVIII. 27-32.
Different modes of treatment for, XVIII. 32 _et seq._
Forfeits its title to recognition, XVIII. 35.

German Emigrant, the, must be against slavery, IV. 19.

German Fellow-citizens, our, and a true Reconstruction, VIII. 238.

Germany, plans of universal peace developed in, II. 392-397; XVIII.
233-236.
Pretensions of State sovereignty in, XVI. 18-20.
Protection of American citizens in, XVI. 312.
The duel between France and, XVIII. 175.
Resources of, in 1870, XVIII. 194.
Indemnity to, XVIII. 217.
Guaranty claimed by, XVIII. 219.
Proper guaranty for, XVIII. 223;
advantages of same, XVIII. 223-229.
Sufferings of, from war, XVIII. 232.
Charity to France or, XVIII. 319.
Obligations of United States to, XVIII. 320.
See _Franco-German War_ and _Prussia_.

Gettysburg, battle of, XII. 271.
Lincoln’s speech at, XII. 271, 272; XIX. 226.

Gibbon, Edward, autobiography of, I. 190.
On praise, II. 180.

Giddings, Joshua R., treatment of, by slave-masters in Congress, VI.
206-208.

Gifts, acceptance of, by office-holders, XX. 118, 215.
Instances of refusal of, XX. 119-122, 215 _et seq._

Gladstone, William E., XX. 274.

Glory, defined, II. 162.
In antiquity, II. 163-165, 169.
Cicero’s opinions on, II. 165, 170-174.
In Middle Ages, II. 166.
Among savages, II. 167.
Sir W. Jones on, II. 175.
Influence of, II. 175, 194.
Pascal on, II. 177.
Love of, a low motive, II. 178 _et seq._
Desire for, dangerous, II. 180.
Burke on, II. 181.
False, II. 182.
True, defined, II. 184, 194.
Waller on true, II. 185.
Wolfe’s idea of, II. 186.
Nature of military, II. 187, 424-428.
Examples of false and true, II. 197-200.
Lincoln on military, XII. 262.

God, not the God of armies, I. 57.

Gold, coined, is merchandise, XI. 270;
authorities stating same, XI. 271.
Necessity of inspection for, XI. 272.

Government, improvement of, XVII. 136-138.
The science of justice, XVII. 138.
Reform and purity in, XX. 5.
Personal, unrepublican, XX. 93 _et seq._
See _Military Government_, _Republican Government_, and
_Self-Government_.

Grant, Ulysses S., President of United States, labors to popularize
annexion of San Domingo, XVIII. 270; XIX. 91; XX. 148.
His usurpation in threatening Hayti and San Domingo by ships of war,
XVIII. 282; XIX. 31, 78, 81, 90; XX. 88, 147, 151, 178 _et seq._,
217 _et seq._
On rejection of treaty for annexion of San Domingo, XVIII. 284; XIX.
92; XX. 148.
Threatens independence of Hayti, in annual message, XVIII. 284-288;
XIX. 91.
His endeavor to change the committee on foreign relations, XVIII. 289.
Interview of, with Mr. Sumner on San Domingo treaties, XVIII. 293
_et seq._
No precedent for his assumption of war-powers in Dominican treaty, XIX.
82,--his usurpation continued after rejection of same, XIX. 85; XX.
148,--testimony to same, XIX. 87 _et seq._
Personal relations of Mr. Sumner with, XIX. 99, 104-106; XX. 155, 200.
His pretensions, as President, XX. 90-92, 124-153.
As a civilian, XX. 97 _et seq._
E. M. Stanton’s opinion of, XX. 98-100.
Duty of exposing, XX. 100.
His nepotism, XX. 101 _et seq._, 128.
Takes gifts and repays with office, XX. 117, 122-124, 216.
His selection of his Cabinet, XX. 122 _et seq._, 125 _et seq._
His inaugural address, XX. 125.
His appropriation of offices, XX. 128 _et seq._, 166.
His assault on a safeguard of the Treasury, XX. 129-131.
Appoints army officers as secretaries, XX. 131 _et seq._;
illegality of same, XX. 133-137.
His interference in local politics, XX. 142 _et seq._
The great Presidential quarreller, XX. 153-156.
Duty of Republican party as to his reëlection, XX. 156.
Favors originally one term for President, XX. 157, 222;
necessity of same shown by his example, XX. 159 _et seq._
Unfit to be President, XX. 162, 254.
Apologies for, considered, XX. 162-165.
Indifferent to colored people, XX. 165, 181 _et seq._
As a candidate for reëlection, XX. 165-169.
His antecedents, XX. 177-182.
His nomination for reëlection, XX. 182 _et seq._
His supporters, XX. 184.
Frederick Douglass and, XX. 205.
Greeley or, XX. 209.
His reëlection secured by office-holders, XX. 223-225.

Grantism, Republicanism _vs._, XX. 83.

Great Britain, war of, with United States in 1812, I. 17, 31 _et seq._;
VIII. 50-52.
Public debt and annual taxation of, in 1842, I. 73.
Army of, in 1845, I. 75.
Navy of, I. 76.
Fortifications and militia of, I. 77.
Relative expenditure of, for war-preparations, I. 78.
Emancipation of slaves in West Indies by, I. 127; V. 28-30; VI. 343.
Treaties of, with Barbary States, II. 30,--abolishes white slavery in
same, II. 78, 80; VIII. 297; X. 72.
Great institutions of liberty originated by, IV. 38; VIII. 41.
Mode of abrogation of treaty of, with United States, concerning Oregon,
V. 106.
Early support of slave-trade by, V. 149; X. 71; XIII. 313.
Ground of her complaint in Trent case, VIII. 35-37.
Pretensions of, in maritime questions, VIII. 41.
Testimony to policy of, in regard to neutral rights, VIII. 42-56, 63,
64, 67; XII. 16-32, 38-41.
Prohibits paper money in America, VIII. 190.
Paper money in history of, VIII. 203.
Treaties of, with United States, to suppress slave-trade, VIII.
337-341.
Efforts of, against slave-trade, VIII. 339, 343; X. 74-77.
History of intervention of, against slavery, X. 71-84.
Relations with: the St. Albans raid, XII. 42.
Slavery condemned by law and literature of, XII. 156-162.
Attitude of justice towards, XIV. 96.
Reported designs of, against Russian America, XV. 43-48.
Action of, concerning surplus of indemnity paid by France in 1815 and
1818, XVIII. 129.
See _England_.

Greeley, Horace, antecedents of, XX. 177 _et seq._
His nomination to the Presidency, XX. 182 _et seq._, 242 _et seq._
His supporters, XX. 184 _et seq._
His election the triumph of Republican principles, XX. 185-187, 198
_et seq._
Reasons for his nomination, XX. 191.
Or Grant? speech, XX. 209.
Reasons for voting for, XX. 213, 241, 248.
On reconciliation between North and South, XX. 227.
His fidelity to Republican principles, XX. 249-252.
Letter of, quoted, XX. 250.
Tribute to, XX. 256.
His devotion to Henry Clay, XX. 261.

Greene, Nathanael, Gen., on weakness of South Carolina in Revolutionary
War, IV. 203-206.
Speech on presentation of statue of, XVII. 299.

Greener, Richard T., article by, on necessity of supplementary
civil-rights bill, quoted, XIX. 271.

Grégoire, Henri, Abbé, career of, XV. 408-410.
His prophecies concerning America, XV. 410 _et seq._

Grimes, James W., Senator from Iowa, reply to his criticism on bill for
creation of Freedmen’s Bureau, XI. 323-339, 343-349.

Griswold, Rufus W., letter to, III. 213.

Grotius, on substitutes for war, II. 385.
His definition of war, IX. 21.
On recognition of States, X. 107.
On reprisals, XVI. 303, 305.
On alienation of territory, XVIII. 221.

Guaranties, against slavery, X. 295.
Irreversible, XI. 351.
For the national freedman and the national creditor, XII. 305, 325-329;
XVII. 101-116,--modes of obtaining same, XII. 333-341; XVII. 115.

Guaranty of Republican Government to State, must be fulfilled by
Congress, X. 211; XI. 370; XII. 197, 331; XIII. 62, 136, 211, 327;
XV. 231; XVI. 245; XVII. 43; XVIII. 4, 28.
Upheld by Madison, X. 212; XIII. 139.
Part execution of, XIII. 14, 113, 323.
Origin and purpose of, XIII. 139-143.
Webster on, XIII. 143.
Authorities declaring duty of Congress to fulfil, XIII. 212;
arguments against same, refuted, XIII. 213-215; XVII. 44.

Guizot, on increase of toleration in old age, XX. 264.

Gurowski, Adam, Count, his work on slavery, VI. 347.
Letter to, VII. 184.

Habeas Corpus, suspension of, in United States and Ireland, X. 16
_et seq._

Hale, John P., Free-Soil candidate for President in 1852, IV. 10.
His remarks on testimony of colored persons in United States courts
answered, IX. 154-156.

Hale, Sir Matthew, on arrangement of time, I. 201.

Halleck, Henry W., Gen., orders of, for surrender of fugitive slaves,
VII. 359 _et seq._, VIII. 356 _et seq._
His work on international law, VIII. 330.
On consuls, VIII. 330.
On privateering, IX. 287.
On seizures in neutral waters, XII. 13.
On retaliation, XII. 78.
On reprisals, XVI. 303, 305, 306.
On equality of nations, XIX. 70.
On belligerent intervention, XIX. 74 _et seq._

Hamilton, Alexander, views of, on slavery, III. 287.
On republican government, XIII. 147, 182 _et seq._
On right of negroes to representation, XIII. 183 _et seq._, 329; XVI.
251; XVII. 45.
His plan of representation, XIII. 329.
On sovereignty of the Union, XVI. 29, 33.
On State rights, XVI. 253.
On cessation of obligation of treaties, XVIII. 35.
On the treaty-making power, XIX. 79 _et seq._

Hamlin, Hannibal, Republican candidate for Vice-Presidency in 1860, VI.
337.

Harper’s Ferry Investigation, speeches on imprisonment of Thaddeus Hyatt
for refusing to testify in, VI. 80.

Harrison, William H., on one term for the President, XIX. 170; XX. 158,
221.

Hartley, David, XV. 347.
John Adams on, XV. 348.
His speeches and letter concerning America, XV. 349-359.
The first abolitionist in Parliament, XV. 352.

Harvard University in 1845, I. 80.
Expenditures of, I. 82.
Law School of, I. 142, 262; III. 101.
And Dr. Channing, I. 286.
Mottoes of, I. 302.
Judge Story’s benefactions to, III. 112.
See _Law School of Harvard University_.

Hatch, Davis, on annexion of San Domingo, XVIII. 290.
Imprisonment of, XIX. 45; XX. 147, 179,--evidence as to same, XIX.
46-48.

Hawley, Joseph R., Gen., XVIII. 172.

Hayti, and Liberia, independence of, VIII. 307.
Entitled to recognition, VIII. 311.
Described, VIII. 312-314.
Commercial relations of, with United States in 1860, VIII. 315-319.
Advantages of recognizing, VIII. 319-322, 324 _et seq._
Consuls not sufficient for, VIII. 325-327, 330-332.
Recognition of, early commended, VIII. 327.
Merits of citizens of, VIII. 329.
Threatened by United States ships of war, XVIII. 277, 303; XIX. 49;
XX. 151, 179.
Relations of, with Dominica, XVIII. 278-280.
President of, on annexion of Dominica, XVIII. 283.
Independence of, threatened by President Grant, XVIII. 284-288; XIX.
91; XX. 151, 178 _et seq._
Testimony to threats of United States ships of war against, XIX. 48-51,
57, 64-66.
Value of its example, XIX. 49, 155.
Treatment of, by United States, a violation of international law, XIX.
71, 75; XX. 88, 147.
The equal of other nations, XIX. 72.
Presentation of medal from, XIX. 154.
Letter to President of, XX. 270.

Henry IV., of France, proposes congress of nations, II. 384; XVIII. 233.

Henry, Patrick, on slavery, II. 231; III. 288; XII. 150.
His opposition to the Constitution, X. 182; XII. 125; XIII. 305;
XVI. 41.
On power of Congress over slavery, XI. 191.

Herder, on progress, II. 257.

Hill, Benjamin H., Senator from Georgia, colloquy of, with Mr. Sumner, on
need of civil-rights bill, XIX. 206-212 (_Introduction_).

Hill, Rowland, plans of, for postal reform, XVIII. 69;
opposition to same, XVIII. 70 _et seq._
Honors to, XVIII. 80.

Hinds, James, Representative from Arkansas, tribute to, XVII. 32.

Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, Prince Leopold, XVIII. 184, 186, 197.
His relationship to the King of Prussia and Napoleon III., XVIII. 198
_et seq._

Holland, navy of, in 1839, I. 77.
Frees white slaves in Algiers, II. 33.
Adopts separate system in prisons, II. 137.
Slavery not allowed in, XII. 169.

Homer, on slavery, II. 14.

Honor, “point of,” I. 60 (and _note_).
True, distinguished from false, I. 61.
Vattel on, I. 62 (and _note_).
Montesquieu on, I. 62.
Plato on, I. 64.
“Point of,” not recognized by ancient Greeks, but demanded by chivalry,
I. 65.

Hooper, Samuel, XVIII. 170.

Hornet, case of the, XVII. 201 _et seq._ (see _note_).

Hotels, open to all by law, XIX. 236;
authorities proving same, XIX. 236-238.

House of Representatives, has inquisitorial powers, VI. 88.
Its proper number, XX. 1.

Howard, John, Burke on, I. 165.
Advocates separation of prisoners, I. 167.
Act of Parliament drawn up by, I. 168; II. 122.
Ambition of, II. 199.

Howard University, address at Commencement of Law School of, XVIII. 314.

Howe, Samuel G., and Lafayette in July, 1830, I. 334.
Character of, I. 334.
Opposed to slavery and the Mexican War, I. 336.
Letter to, VI. 78.

Howe, Timothy O., his attacks on Mr. Sumner, XIX. 102 _et seq._

Human Nature, goodness of, I. 107.

Human Rights, sympathy with, everywhere, a letter expressing, III. 168.
No compromise of, XIII. 282, 312.
Dedication of United States to, XVI. 28, 31, 54; XIX. 226.
Any enactment for, constitutional, XVII. 38.

Hume, David, his account of refusals of English sailors to serve in
unjust wars, I. 349 _et seq._
On slavery, XII. 160.
On duration of the English language, XV. 313.
On America, XV. 385 _et seq._

Humphreys, Col., on freeing American slaves in Barbary States, II. 59,
72; VIII. 293, 296.

Hunter, William, XIV. 82.

Hyatt, Thaddeus, imprisonment of, VI. 80; XIX. 133, 146.

Idea, absorption in one, dangerous, I. 208;
objections to Free Soil Party for same, refuted, III. 34; XVI. 338.

Illinois, appeal to Republicans of, in 1856, VI. 13.

Impeachment, privileges of debate in the Senate on officers liable to,
XV. 241, 249.
A political proceeding, XVI. 136-141, 228.
Character of offences liable to, XVI. 141;
authorities on same, XVI. 143-147.
Form of procedure in, untechnical, XVI. 148;
precedents and authorities proving same, XVI. 149-157.
Rules of evidence in cases of, XVI. 157-164;
authorities respecting same, XVI. 158-160.

Income Tax, XVIII. 40.
McCulloch on, XVIII. 41-43.
Sir R. Peel on, XVIII. 43.
Reason for, in England, XVIII. 44.

Independence, and those who saved the original work, XVI. 256.

Indians, included under word “person” in the Constitution, III. 298;
VIII. 277; XI. 194.
Massacre of Cheyenne, XII. 66.

Industrial Exhibition at London, in 1862, VIII. 157.

Inhabitancy, question of, XVIII. 11.
Authorities respecting, XVIII. 13 _et seq._, 18.
Judicial decision on admissible evidence to prove, XVIII. 15 _et seq._

Insane, gentleness in treatment of, I. 106.

International Law, sanctions war, I. 13, 293; II. 340; XVIII. 182.
Wheaton’s works on, II. 216, 219, 220, 222-225.
Authorities on supremacy of, II. 339.
Object of, II. 350.
Modes of establishing principles of, VIII. 31.
Should not be violated, VIII. 37; XIX. 67.
British pretensions under, VIII. 41.
Needed reforms in maritime, VIII. 75-79.
Gen. Halleck’s work on, VIII. 330.
Does not require recognition of a _de facto_ power, X. 105;
authorities declaring same, X. 106-108.
Morality a part of, X. 109.
Montesquieu on, XII. 86.
Everett’s knowledge of, XII. 87.
Lieber’s acquaintance with, XII. 88.

Intervention, belligerent, III. 180; X. 84; XIX. 73.
Protest against foreign, IX. 307.
Character of foreign, X. 48-50, 86.
Instances of, in external affairs, X. 51-53;
and in internal affairs, X. 53-71.
Unarmed, X. 85.
By recognition, X. 87;
instances of same, X. 87-94.
Authorities respecting belligerent, XIX. 74 _et seq._

Iowa, resources of, III. 196.
Improvements in, needed, III. 197.

Iowa Railroad Bill, speeches on, III. 182.
Objections to amendment to, III. 209, 212.

Ireland, sympathy with, III. 181.
And Irishmen, IV. 80.

Iron-clad Oath, the, for Senators, X. 273.
Necessity of requirement of, for legislatures of rebel States,
XVII. 226-230.

Isthmus of Darien, a ship-canal through the, XIV. 124.

Italy, independence and unity of, VI. 67; XVIII. 307; XIX. 15.
Pretensions of State sovereignty in, XVI. 18.
Numerical size of its legislative bodies, XX. 3.

Jackson, Andrew, on authority of Supreme Court and Constitution, III.
316; IV. 179; V. 253; XVI. 207.
Appeals to colored men to enlist, VI. 295.
Letter of, on object of Nullification, VII. 166, 320.
On recognition of independence of Texas, X. 94.
On claims on foreign powers, XI. 157.
Favors one term for the President, XIX. 169 _et seq._; XX. 158, 221.

Jay, John, on slavery, II. 67; III. 287.
His desire for nationality, XVI. 34.

Jefferson, Thomas, his desire for abolition of slavery, I. 312; III. 15,
288,--suggested exclusion of same from Territories, II. 210; III. 16,
253; VII. 58.
On war, II. 399.
On evils of slavery, III. 23, 269; IV. 175; VI. 164; XII. 160.
On State rights, III. 325.
His plan for a representative system, IV. 44; XIII. 320.
On interpreting the Constitution, IV. 180.
On British impressment of American sailors, VIII. 46.
On establishment of seat of national government, VIII. 270.
On confiscation of property in war, IX. 36, 68.
On privateers, X. 136.
On subordination of military authority in United States, X. 170; XIV.
342; XVIII. 51.
On Franklin’s mission to Paris, X. 229.
On treaties, XI. 150.
Lincoln on, XII. 256.
On Republican government, XIII. 178 _et seq._
On future government of Pacific coast, XV. 52; XV. 412.
His other predictions concerning America, XV. 414, 432 _et seq._
On rules for appointment of Senate committees, XX. 53 _et seq._
On appointment of relations to office, XX. 103, 112 _et seq._
His inaugural address quoted, XX. 125.
Foresees tyranny of Executive, XX. 224.

Johnson, Andrew, VII. 231; XI. 351.
Legality of his seat in Senate, X. 195; XI. 352.
On reorganizing Tennessee, X. 202; XI. 362.
Appeal to, in 1865, concerning Reconstruction, XII. 342.
On Reconstruction, XII. 369, 408; XIV. 197 _et seq._, 294; XVII. 231.
“Whitewashing” by, XIII. 47; XIV. 206.
His attack on Mr. Sumner, XIII. 266-269 (_Appendix_).
His veto of civil-rights bill, XIII. 276-279;
and of bill for admission of Colorado, XIII. 372.
His usurpation in reconstructing rebel States, XIV. 189-192, 250-253;
XV. 218; XVI. 165-167.
Bestows power on Rebels, XIV. 192-197, 203; XVI. 167 _et seq._
His inconsistency, XIV. 197; XVI. 166, 345.
His accession to office, XIV. 199.
Personal relations of, with Mr. Sumner, XIV. 199-205.
Criminality of, XIV. 206-208, 348; XV. 243; XVI. 165, 203, 225.
Scandalous speeches of, XIV. 207, 254; XVI. 170, 218-220.
Protection against, XIV. 239.
Vigilance and precaution against, XIV. 348; XV. 170, 191, 240; XVI. 66.
Opinion on impeachment of, XVI. 134;
same a battle with slavery, XVI. 134.
Outline of his transgressions, XVI. 164-173, 199.
His open defiance of Congress, XVI. 171.
Impeached, XVI. 172.
Articles of his impeachment, XVI. 173 _et seq._
Apologies for, refuted, XVI. 196-208.
Technicalities and quibbles in impeachment of, XVI. 208-217.
Guilty on all the articles, XVI. 217-221.
Anticipated results of acquittal of, XVI. 225.
On the Declaration of Independence, XIX. 302.

Johnson, Reverdy, Senator from Maryland, criticisms of, answered, X.
329-333; XI. 385 _et seq._; XII. 119-126.
His defence of Dred Scott decision answered, XI. 63-65.
His interpretation of the fugitive clause criticised, XI. 234-238.

Johnson, Samuel, on merchants, IV. 289.
On American slave-masters, VI. 165; XII. 159.
On unlimited authority of governments, VII. 51.

Johnson-Clarendon Treaty, speech on the, XVII. 53.
Character of, XVII. 53-58.

Jones, Sir William, on arrangement of time, I. 200.
Compared to John Pickering, I. 237.
On glory, II. 175.
His substitute for militia, II. 366.
On complicity with slavery, XII. 268.
His character and career, XV. 391.
His prophecy concerning America, XV. 393;
other verses resembling same, XV. 394.

Judges, crimes committed by, IV. 272 _et seq._
Support of slavery by, XI. 206.
Authorities for guidance of, in proclaiming emancipation, XI. 208
_et seq._

Judgments, unrighteous, should be disobeyed, IV. 274-276, 317.

Julian, George W., Free-Soil candidate for Vice-President in 1852,
IV. 10.

Juries, impanelling of, and trial of Jefferson Davis, XIII. 111.
Right of colored persons to serve on, XIX. 290 _et seq._

Jurist, Judge Story as the, in Phi Beta Kappa oration of 1846, I.
258-272.
Distinguished from the lawyer, judge, and legislator, I. 263-265.
Examples of the, I. 266.

Jury, trial by. See _Trial by Jury_.

Justice, cost of administering, in United States, I. 84.

Kansas, a liberty-loving emigration to guard, IV. 138.
Squatter sovereignty in, V. 68.
First election and legislation in, V. 69, 163 _et seq._, 179-182.
Freedom in, must be upheld, V. 72, 123.
Reply to assaults on emigration in, V. 121, 194-205.
The crime against: speech, V. 125.
Description of, V. 136.
Wrongs of, V. 139; VI. 120; XIII. 41,--motives for same, V. 140, 183;
VI. 121.
Attempts to convert, into a slave State, V. 158, 172.
Emigration to, V. 159; VI. 368.
Forcible invasions of, V. 160; VI. 368,--testimony to same, V. 161-167.
Insecurity of property and life in, V. 168-171.
Evidence of usurpation in, V. 172-178.
Illegality of its first legislature, V. 185-187.
Plan of secret society to form a free State in, V. 193.
President’s message on, compared to George III.’s speech on
Massachusetts Bay, V. 209 _et seq._
People of, should not be disarmed, V. 211.
Douglas’s bill for its admission as a State condemned, V. 212-215.
Reasons for immediate admission of, V. 217; XIII. 355,--objections to
same refuted by historical precedents, V. 218-232.
Proceedings in, for formation of a new State, defended, V.
232-236,--especially by American authorities, V. 233-235.
Wrongs of, compared to those of America before Revolution, V. 238
_et seq._
Enemies of, in Senate, V. 239-244.
Compared to South Carolina, V. 241 _et seq._
Importance of contest in, V. 247.
Relief for, V. 343, 345; VI. 18, 40, 44.
Duty to vote for, and for Burlingame, VI. 20.
A last word for, VI. 54.
Adoption of Lecompton constitution in, VI. 310, 333.
Collamer’s report on, XIII. 42.
See _Crime against Kansas_, _Nebraska and Kansas Bill_, and _Squatter
Sovereignty_.

Kant, labors of, for perpetual peace, II. 393-395; XVIII. 234 _et seq._
His definition for a republic, XIII. 203.

Kent, Chancellor, adopts Bacon’s definition of war, I. 15.
Compared to Judge Story, I. 143.
On privateering, IX. 288.
On executive power of Congress, X. 174; XI. 372.
On seizures in neutral waters, XII. 13.
On retaliation, XII. 78.
On mode of electing Senators, XIV. 5.
On equality of nations, XIX. 70.
On duties of innkeepers, XIX. 237.

Kentucky, necessity of colored suffrage in, XV. 201.

Kirkwood, Samuel J., Senator from Iowa, reply to, in regard to
Constitution of Iowa, XIV. 137-139.

Know-Nothing Party, denounced, V. 74-76, 79.

Kossuth, Louis, liberation of, III. 169.
Welcome to, III. 171.
His visit to England, III. 175.
Letter on banquet to, III. 180.

Ku-Klux-Klan, the, XVI. 199, 351; XVIII. 25, 301; XIX. 93 _et seq._, 125.
Lawless actions of United States in San Domingo compared to, XIX. 94.
Power of national government against, XIX. 126;
sources of same, XIX. 127 _et seq._

Labor, hours of, XX. 79.

La Bruyère, on war, II. 390.

Ladd, William, labors of, against war, II. 400.

Lafayette, on imprisonment in the Bastile, I. 170.
And Dr. S. G. Howe in July, 1830, I. 334.
His interest in prison discipline, II. 120.
Incorrectly quoted on Pennsylvania system, II. 130.
His opinions and plans concerning slavery, II. 210; VII. 124, 126, 129,
146 _et seq._, 149, 157; XII. 169.
The faithful one: address, VII. 101.
His ruling passion, VII. 105, 110, 125, 158.
Grave and home of, VII. 106-108.
His career, VII. 108-159.
Greatness of, VII. 159-161.

Land States, justice to the, III. 182.
The nation indebted to, III. 188, 192, 195, 204.
Annual land-tax in, III. 191.
National grants to, III. 192-195.
Should be assisted by United States in building railroads, III. 198.

Lands, national, origin and nature of their immunity from taxation,
III. 184-188.
Judicial decision on, III. 185; IV. 126.
Extent and value of above immunity, III. 189-196, 204.

Lane, James H., of Kansas, remarks on title of, to his seat in the
Senate, VIII. 105.

Law, of right, the same for nations as for individuals, I. 46, 291, 340,
380; X. 110; XVIII. 242.
Hooker on, I. 47.
Equality before the, III. 51; XI. 217.
No law final, III. 270.
God’s law above human, III. 361; XI. 207.
St. Augustine and Cicero on unjust laws, III. 362; XI. 207.
Cicero’s definition of, X. 109.
See _Common Law_ and _International Law_.

Law School of Harvard University, I. 142, 262.
Character and history of the, III. 101.
A Story professorship of commercial law in, recommended, III. 114-116.

Law School of Howard University, address at Commencement exercises of,
XVIII. 314.

Lawyer, position of the American, III. 166.
Admission of a colored, to the bar of the Supreme Court, XII. 97.
Duty of the young colored, XVIII. 314.

Lawyers, defence of prerogative by, XVI. 216.

Lecompton Constitution for Kansas, adoption of, VI. 310, 333.

Lee, Robert E., Gen., denies hostility of Southerners to freed negroes,
XVI. 351 _et seq._
A traitor, XVIII. 254.

Leibnitz, announces law of progress, II. 255.
On Saint-Pierre’s “Project of Perpetual Peace,” II. 389; XVIII. 233.

Letters, debate in Parliament on opening of, by Government, XIX. 150-152.

Letters of Marque and Reprisal, inexpediency of, IX. 278, 313.
Must be specially issued by Congress, IX. 285.
Regulation of, in England, IX. 285.
Should not be issued indefinitely, IX. 293-295.
Power of the President over, IX. 296-298.
See _Privateers_.

Liberia, independence of Hayti and, VIII. 307.
Entitled to recognition, VIII. 311.
Description of, VIII. 314.
Commercial relations of, with United States in 1860, VIII. 316, 323.
Clay on recognition of, VIII. 323.
Consequences of recognizing, VIII. 324.
Consuls not sufficient for, VIII. 325-327, 330-332.
Merits of citizens of, VIII. 329.

Liberty, jubilee of, XII. 5.
See _Freedom_.

Libraries, public, XIV. 264 _et seq._

Lieber, Francis, on war, I. 15.
On retaliation, XII. 80-82, 88.
As a publicist, XII. 88.
His definition of “nation,” XVI. 12;
and of a “state,” XVII. 138.

Lincoln, Abraham, Republican candidate for President in 1860, VI. 337.
Reasons for selection of, VI. 355; VII. 66; XII. 257.
Character of, VII. 79; XII. 277-289.
Opinions of, on emancipation, VII. 271 (_Appendix_), VIII. 14; IX.
117 _et seq._; XII. 282.
His plan for reorganizing rebel States, XI. 363 _et seq._; XIV.
196-294.
Letter of, on terms of peace, XI. 429, 477.
Effect of a vote for, in 1864, XI. 432.
And the Nasby letters, XII. 228; XX. 65-67.
Respect for memory of, XII. 229.
Eulogy on, XII. 235.
Compared to Washington, XII. 238.
His career, XII. 242-277.
Extracts from his speeches against Douglas, XII. 247-255, 279; XVIII.
165-167; XIX. 302.
His fidelity to the Declaration of Independence, XII. 248-257, 260;
XVIII. 165-168; XIX. 224-226, 302.
His moderation, XII. 261-263, 284.
Compared to other historical characters, XII. 287-289.
On surplus of Chinese indemnity fund, XVIII. 121.
See _Proclamation of Emancipation_.

Literature, and art, national academy of, XI. 401.
A curiosity of, XII. 371;
moral of same, XII. 405.

Livermore, George, obituary notice of, XII. 301.

Locke, John, on equality, III. 58.
On slavery, VI. 164; XII. 159.
On taxation without representation, XIII. 156, 300;
comments on same, XIII. 300.

London, industrial exhibition at, VIII. 157.

Louis, St., King of France, character of, I. 40-42.
Suppresses trial by battle, I. 41; II. 347; XVIII. 242.
Compared to Lincoln, XII. 289.

Louis Napoleon, unfriendly actions of, to United States during Rebellion,
X. 41-47, 256; XVIII. 211.
Perfidy and wickedness of his career, XVIII. 208-212.
Retribution upon, XVIII. 212.
See _Franco-German War_.

Louisiana, remarks on the recognition of her new State government,
XII. 179.

Louisiana Convention of 1803, claims on France for spoliations not
included in, XI. 141-146.

Lovejoy, Owen, Representative from Illinois, speech on death of, XI. 54.

Lowndes, William, of South Carolina, IV. 114.

Loyal Citizens, rights of, and a republican government, XIII. 35.

Luther, on occupation, I. 207.

Macaulay on slavery: article, VI. 71.

Macaulay, Zachary, the abolitionist, VI. 76.

McClellan, George B., Gen., letter of, as Democratic candidate for
Presidency in 1864, XI. 428, 478.
Effect of a vote for, XI. 431 _et seq._

Mackintosh, Sir James, on mediation, X. 53.
On recognition of new States, X. 112.

McLane, Louis, suggests Missouri Compromise in House of Representatives,
IV. 104, 116; VII. 29.

Madison, James, opposes admission of idea of slavery into the
Constitution, III. 17, 278; VI. 227; X. 358; XIII. 120.
On representation, IV. 46; XIII. 320.
On British impressment of American seamen, VIII. 48, 50.
On seizure of ambassadors and others in neutral ships, VIII. 57-59.
On necessity of guaranty of republican government for States, X. 212;
XIII. 139.
On republican government, XIII. 179-182.
On power of Congress to correct inequality of suffrage, XIII. 215; XVI.
251; XVII. 45.
His desire for nationality, XVI. 35.
On suspension of the President, XVI. 91, 93.
On reasons for impeaching the President, XVI. 147.
On the pretension that offices are spoils of victory, XX. 116.

Magicienne, case of the, XIV. 96.

Mails, removal of disqualification of color in carrying the, VIII. 247.

Male suffrage, an educational test of, XIV. 228; XVI. 348 _et seq._

Man, no property in, VI. 131, 218, 319; VIII. 261; XI. 173.
Equal rights of, XVII. 134; XIX. 249.
The Bible on Unity of, XVII. 147;
Humboldt on same, XVII. 156 _et seq._
True unity of, XVII. 157-162; XVIII. 250,--same recognized by
scientific men, XVII. 159-161.
See _Races_.

Manilius, “Astronomicon” of, X. 252.

Mann, Horace, letters on statue of, VI. 78; VII. 20.

Mansfield, Lord, on popularity, I. 283; II. 180.
On the authority necessary for slavery, III. 275; VI. 223; VIII. 274;
X. 343.
His decree annulling slavery in England, III. 302; IV. 310-313; VIII.
279; XI. 236; XII. 158.
His decision in the Lewis kidnapping case, IV. 303.
Character of, IV. 309.
On levying war, VIII. 125.
On reprisals, XVI. 302.

Manufactures, in slave and free States, VI. 147.

Maritime Rights. See _Trent Case_ and _Neutral Rights_.

Marque and Reprisal, letters of. See _Letters of Marque and Reprisal_.

Marshall, Chief-Justice, compared to Judge Story, I. 143.
On authority for infringement of rights, VI. 224; X. 343.
On British impressment of American seamen, VIII. 47.
On bills of credit, VIII. 184.
On confiscation in war, IX. 69.
On power of Congress over Territories, X. 209; XI. 368.
On claims for French spoliations, XI. 88, 128.
His decision on State taxation of national banks, XI. 249.
On power of Congress over inter-State intercourse by railway, XII.
113 _et seq._
On powers of Congress under the Constitution, XIII. 216, 273, 278;
XVIII. 29; XIX. 277.
On an attempt to evade neutral obligations, XX. 18.

Maryland, laws of, on slavery, III. 220; VIII. 272.
Its laws adopted in District of Columbia, III. 221; VIII. 271.
Statutes of, on pardoning power, III. 225 _et seq._
Necessity of colored suffrage in, XV. 200.

Mason, James M., Senator from Virginia, attacks of, answered, IV.
175-177, 212; V. 255.
Author of Fugitive-Slave Bill, IV. 213; X. 392,--challenged to defend
same, IV. 213-216.
His enmity to Kansas, V. 243 _et seq._
On slavery, VI. 123.
His treasonable actions, VIII. 32.
Seizure of, on the Trent, VIII. 33.
On the fugitive clause in the Constitution, X. 371.
On trial by jury for fugitive slaves, X. 380.

Massachusetts, seal of, I. 94.
Exertions of, against slavery, I. 308; VII. 13-16, 264.
Should demand abolition of slavery, I. 309.
Arguments before Supreme Court of, I. 352; III. 51.
Laws of, on militia, I. 359 _et seq._, 368.
Governor of, grants petition for ransoming slaves in Barbary States,
II. 52.
Aids Gen. Taylor’s nomination, II. 233.
Address previous to the State election of 1848, II. 316.
Vote of, in Presidential election, II. 316.
Resolutions of Legislature of, on substitutes for war, II. 406.
Influence of corporations in, III. 42.
Need of reform in its representative system, III. 43; IV. 35.
Constitution of, on equality, III. 64.
Allows no color-distinction in her schools, III. 66, 85;
nor her courts, III. 69.
Favors national grants to Land States, III. 207, 208.
Opposition of, to Stamp Act, III. 340; IV. 166.
History of its representative system, IV. 39-44.
Influence of towns in, IV. 50.
Origin and character of Bill of Rights of, IV. 63-71.
Account of slavery in, IV. 187-190; VII. 11-15; XI. 448; XII. 145.
Number of troops furnished by, in Revolutionary War, IV. 198; V. 206.
James Otis an example to, IV. 237.
Duties of, at the present crisis (1854), IV. 255.
Colonial law of, against witchcraft, IV. 276.
Influence of, V. 205; VI. 34-35; VII. 8, 16; XII. 315.
Her desire for freedom in Kansas, V. 206.
Should help Kansas, V. 343; VI. 44.
Appeal to young men of, VI. 7.
Unworthy conduct of some citizens of, in regard to Kansas, VI. 36.
Mr. Sumner’s letter to people of, previous to his sailing for Europe
in 1858, VI. 62.
Example of, against slavery, VII. 5.
Duties of citizens of, VII. 7.
Early history of, III. 8-16.
First settlers of, VII. 8; XI. 448.
Paper money in, VIII. 187 _et seq._
Favors justice to all, XVIII. 158.

Mayflower, the, and the slave-ship, VII. 8; X. 260; XI. 446.
Carlyle on, XI. 447.

Mechanics in the Civil War, justice to, XIV. 43.

Mediation, a substitute for war, I. 51.
Uninvited, not allowable in civil war, X. 49, 85.
Mackintosh on, X. 53.

Memphis and Shreveport, aid to sufferers by yellow fever at, XX. 281.

Mercantile Library Association of Boston, address before, IV. 283.

Merchant, position and duties of the, illustrated by the life of
Granville Sharp, IV. 283.

Merchants, American, in Paris, letter to, VI. 56.
Unjust arrest and prosecution of two Boston, XII. 209.

Metric System of weights and measures, XIV. 148.
Invention of, XIV. 156.
Explained, XIV. 158-160.
Advantages of, XIV. 160-163.

Mexican War, injustice of, I. 307, 319, 322, 335, 377.
Caused by slavery, I. 307, 322, 335, 377.
Beginning of, I. 318.
Bill and amendment to raise supplies for, I. 319 _et seq._;
arguments against same, I. 321.
Slavery and the: speech, I. 333.
Denounced by Whig Convention, I. 336.
Mr. Winthrop’s actions in regard to, I. 338.
Whigs should oppose, I. 339.
United States should abandon, I. 340.
Invalidity of enlistments in Massachusetts regiment of volunteers for
the, I. 352.
A war of aggression, I. 379.
Expenses of, I. 379.
Compared to Revolutionary War, I. 382.

Mexico, wrongful declaration of war against, I. 317.
Withdrawal of American troops from, I. 374.
Help for, against foreign intervention, VIII. 227.
Debt of, to allied powers, VIII. 232.
Securities for loan to, VIII. 234.
Remarks on resolutions against French interference in, IX. 257.
French expedition to, X. 42.
Mediation between contending parties in, XV. 174.
Alaman’s prophecy concerning, XV. 426-428.
See _Mexican War_.

Michigan, account of irregular admission of, into the Union, V. 222-232;
debates in Congress on same quoted, V. 223-225, 227-229.

Military Government of rebel States, IX. 119; X. 168-175; XI. 365;
XIV. 326.
Subordinate to civil, in the United States, X. 170, 194; XIV. 326;
XVIII. 51.
Jefferson on, X. 170; XIV. 342; XVII. 151.
Under Cromwell, X. 171 _et seq._
Congressional government preferable to, for rebel States, X. 173-175,
194; XIV. 326 _et seq._

Militia, of United States, not needed for defence or as police, I. 91;
II. 363,--not volunteers, I. 357,--cost of, II. 367,--power of
Congress over, I. 354; IV. 21, 26-30,--distinguished from army,
I. 355.
Of England, I. 357; IV. 29.
C. Turner on, I. 358.
Laws of Massachusetts on, I. 359 _et seq._, 368.
Testimony to unpopularity of, in Massachusetts, II. 364.
Substitute for, II. 365;
Sir W. Jones’s suggestion for same, II. 366.
Powers of the State over, IV. 20, 25.
Exemptions from service in, for conscientious scruples, IV. 23.
Colored companies in, IV. 25.
Volunteer, are not national, IV. 31.

Mills, John, Free-Soil candidate for Lieut.-Governor of Massachusetts in
1848 and 1849, II. 318; III. 44.

Milton, on early rising, I. 204.
His labors for liberty compared to Channing’s, I. 292.
On virtue in individuals and States, I. 380.
On slavery, II. 100; XI. 204.
On war, II. 185.
On true glory, II. 199.
On settlement of America, XV. 265.

Mints, branch, and coinage, XI. 263.
In France, XI. 264.
Dumas’ report on French, XI. 265 _et seq._
In United States, XI. 267-269.
Cost of, XI. 274 _et seq._

Misprision of treason, definitions of, XVI. 80.
Penalty for, in United States, XVI. 81.

Mississippi, origin of repudiation in, XVI. 275; XVII. 105,--Judge Curtis
on same, XVII. 105 _et seq._
Admission of, to representation in Congress, XVIII. 1.

Mississippi, the, union of, with the lakes by canal, IX. 320.
Reconstruction of levees of, XIV. 358.

Missouri, protests against admission of, into Union in 1819, I. 152-154;
IV. 106.
History of its admission, IV. 102-115.
Invasions of Kansas from, V. 162-167; VI. 368.
Speech on aid to emancipation in, IX. 266.
Enfranchisement in, XVI. 331.

Missouri Compromise, no repeal of the, IV. 81.
Adoption of, IV. 91, 111-115; VII. 29 _et seq._; XVI. 231.
Not repealed by Slavery Acts of 1850, IV. 93.
Origin of, and debates on, in Congress, IV. 101-118.
Carried by the South, IV. 113, 116-118; V. 67, 152; VII. 29,--but
repudiated by same, IV. 118; V. 67, 153; VI. 332.
Repeal of, by Nebraska Bill, V. 157; VI. 366.

Monopolies, unlawful, XII. 127;
Webster on, XII. 127, 128.

Montana, colored suffrage in, XI. 62.

Montcalm, Louis, Marquis de, reputed predictions by, concerning America,
XV. 318-321.

Montesquieu, on trial by battle, I. 37; II. 349.
On honor, I. 62.
On Africans, VI. 166; XII. 168.
On international law, XII. 86.
His definition of a republic, XIII. 149, 198; XVII. 114.
On America, XV. 296.
On armies, XVIII. 247.

Moral and Political Sciences, national academy of, XI. 401.

Morrill, Lot M., Senator from Maine, reply to his criticisms on the
supplementary civil-rights bill, XIX. 265-287.

Morse, Samuel F. B., letter to, VI. 64.

Morton, Oliver P., Senator from Indiana, answer to his remarks on
annexion of San Domingo, XVIII. 273-275.

Motley, John Lothrop, XIX. 106.
His removal from the English mission, XIX. 109.
Mr. Sumner’s influence on his nomination, XIX. 117 _et seq._
His memoir on the Alabama claims, XIX. 120, 122.
Testimony of English press to, XIX. 123.

Motto, of Massachusetts, I. 94 (see _note_).
Of United States, XVI. 45;
history of same, XVI. 46.

Naboth’s Vineyard: a speech, XVIII. 257.

Napier, Sir William, on war, I. 12, 34.
On storming of Badajoz, I. 23.

Napoleon I., horrors of his wars, I. 22-26.
On war, I. 33, 34; II. 353.
On value of time, I. 188.
Channing’s essay on, I. 295.
On inability of brute force to create anything durable, II. 376; IX.
231.
His plans for peace, II. 419.
Restrains confiscation in France, IX. 56.
Mediation of, in Switzerland, X. 63.
On claims for French spoliations, XI. 131.
On equality, XIII. 200.
His seizure of English travellers, XVI. 307;
Alison’s account of same, XVI. 307;
same condemned by Napoleon himself and Junot, XVI. 308.

Nasby Letters, quotation from, XIX. 296.
Introduction to, XX. 65.

Nation, are we a? XVI. 3.
Meaning of, XVI. 9 _et seq._;
authorities on same, XVI. 11-13.
Supremacy of the, XVI. 60.

National Banks, the, and the currency, XI. 245.
Exemption of, from State taxation, XI. 246-254, 260-262;
judgment of Chief-Justice Marshall on same, XI. 249.
Purpose of, XI. 257.
Extension of, XVII. 113, 249;
remarks on introducing bill for same, XVII. 184.
Advantages of, XVII. 249.
Propositions concerning, XVII. 249-251, 261, 295-298.
Power of Congress over, XVII. 293-296.

National Debt, obligation of the, XII. 318, 326; XIII. 99; XVI. 268-277,
355.
Denounced by Rebels, XII. 324; XIII. 68 _et seq._
Diminution of interest on, XVI. 279; XVII. 238, 262, 288 _et seq._
Time of its payment, XVI. 280; XVII. 111, 238-241, 291 _et seq._
Amount of, in 1868 and 1869, XVI. 282; XVII. 108.
Posterity should bear the burden of, XVII. 239.
Interest on, where payable, XVII. 243.

Nations, equality of, X. 48; XIX. 67, 156,--authorities stating same,
XIX. 68-71.
Bound to good faith, as neutrals, XX. 14.
Neutral, cannot furnish arms to belligerents directly, XX. 15;
or indirectly, XX. 16,--authorities declaring same, XX. 18-20,
41-44 (_Appendix_).

Naturalization, without distinction of race or color, XV. 238; XVIII.
144;
conformity of same with Declaration of Independence, XVIII. 151
_et seq._, 160;
and with the Constitution, XVIII. 160.

Naval Academy, appointments to the, IX. 301.

Navies of Europe, before 1845, I. 76.

Navy, cost of vessels in United States, I. 81 _et seq._, 88.
Not needed except as police, I. 89; II. 374.
Names of ships in British, II. 360.
Flogging abolished in United States, III. 126.
British criticism on United States, in our Civil War, IX. 347.
Of United States, supports Baez in San Domingo, XVIII. 271, 303; XX.
148,--and menaces Hayti, XVIII. 277, 303; XIX. 49; XX. 151;
testimony to same, XIX. 27, 42, 45, 48-66, 88.

Navy Department, testimony of, to intervention of United States ships at
San Domingo and Hayti, XIX. 51-66.

Nebraska, objections to admission of, as a State, XIV. 128-146.

Nebraska and Kansas Bill denounced, IV. 86, 94, 147.
Importance of question of, IV. 90.
Object of, IV. 92.
Arguments in support of, refuted, IV. 97-99; V. 153 _et seq._
A breach of public faith, IV. 100;
and a departure from original policy of the country, IV. 121.
Not demanded by northern sentiment, IV. 131-146.
Mr. Sumner’s final protest against, for himself and the clergy of
N. E., IV. 140.
May cause war, IV. 146.
Passage of the, IV. 260; V. 154.
A swindle, V. 155.
Despoils people of Kansas of sovereignty, V. 155; VI. 367.
Its repeal of Missouri Compromise, V. 157; VI. 366.
Squatter Sovereignty in, a trick, VI. 366.

Negotiation, substitute for war, I. 51.

Nepotism, origin and history of, XX. 103-110.
American authorities on, XX. 111-114.
Presidential apologies for, XX. 115-117.
Improper in a republic, XX. 214.

Neutral Duties, XX. 5.
Authorities declaring, XX. 15, 18-20, 41-44 (_Appendix_).
Testimony to observance of, by United States, XX. 22-24.

Neutral Rights, testimony to British policy in regard to, VIII. 42-56,
63, 64, 67; XII. 16-32, 38-41,--and to American policy on, VIII.
45-54, 57-62, 64 _et seq._, 68-71; XII. 13.
Testimony of Continental Europe to, VIII. 63, 65,--especially of
France, VIII. 63-70.
French violations of, XI. 82, 110.
The Abbé Galiani’s work on, XV. 360.
See _Right of Search_.

Neutral Waters, British seizures in, XII. 12, 16-32, 38-41.
Authorities respecting seizures in, XII. 13 _et seq._;
policy of United States as to same, XII. 14.

New England Society at New York, letter to, X. 260.
Speech at dinner of, XX. 291.

New Jersey, railroad usurpation in, XII. 105;
testimony to same, XII. 108-111.

New Year’s Day, 1871, XVIII. 300.

New York City, letters to Republicans of, in 1860, VI. 302, 346.
Reform of abuses in its government, XX. 6.

New York Tribune, the, XX. 251 _et seq._

Niagara, a ship-canal at, XIV. 99.

Noel, John W., Representative from Missouri, remarks on death of, X. 293.

Norfolk Agricultural Society, letter to, IV. 280.

Normal Schools, equal rights of colored fellow-citizens in, XX. 268.

North, the, when will it be aroused? IV. 137.
Duties of, concerning slavery, V. 38-48; VI. 317.
Must unite against Slave Power, V. 50.
Outrages on citizens of, in slave States, VI. 187-189, 191-196.
Must stand firm against all compromise, VII. 205.

North and South, hope of their union, IV. 136.
Their respective contributions to the Revolutionary War, IV. 196-211.
Desire for reconciliation between, XX. 192-194, 197, 227-229, 253
_et seq._

North Carolina, colored suffrage in, VI. 292; XI. 287-289; XIII. 191.
Closing of colored schools in, IX. 112.
Laws of, on slavery, quoted, IX. 162-164.

Nullification, Jackson’s letter on object of, VII. 166, 320.
Described, XVI. 58.

Oath to support the Constitution, requirements of, IV. 177-183, 269-271;
VIII. 221; XIX. 312,--authorities on same, IV. 177-181, 269 _et seq._
See _Custom-house Oaths_ and _Iron-clad Oath_.

Ocean Telegraph, the, between Europe and America, XIV. 220, 301.

Offices, protection for incumbents of, XIV. 241, 254-258.
Locality in appointment to, XVII. 94.
Presidential prerogative as to, XX. 115 _et seq._
See _Tenure-of-Office Act_.

One-cent Postage, XVIII. 57.
Reasons for, XVIII. 85, 98-107, 113 _et seq._

One-man Power, the, _vs._ Congress, XIV. 181.

Ordinance of Freedom in the Northwest Territory, authorship of, III. 253.
Adoption of, VII. 58; XVI. 230.
Validity of, defended by Webster and Chase, XVI. 231-234.
Opposition to, XVI. 234.
Does not authorize unlimited equality of States, XVI. 242.

Oregon, establishment of a branch mint in, XI. 263.

Otis, James, an example to Massachusetts, IV. 237.
On slavery, XII. 150; XIII. 164.
His exertions against taxation without representation, XIII. 158-165,
295-298.
Asserts equality of all men, XIII. 295.

Overstone, Lord, on paper money, VIII. 200-202.
On need of postal reform, XVIII. 73, 99-101.

Pacific Coast, advantages to, of cession of Russian America, XV. 36-39.
Jefferson and Webster on future government of, XV. 52, 412 _et seq._
See _California_.

Pacific Railroad, IV. 32; IX. 318.

Paley, William, on right of revolution, II. 336.
On law of nations, II. 340, 341.
His works, XV. 402.
His prediction concerning America, XV. 402.
His exertions against the slave-trade, XV. 403.

Palfrey, John G., liberation of slaves by, I. 151, 292; II. 75.

Palmerston, Lord, on armed intervention in Italy, X. 69.
Exertions of, against slavery, X. 77-83.

Paper Money, debates in National Convention on empowering Congress to
issue, VIII. 185.
In American history, VIII. 187-190.
Policy of issuing, VIII. 192, 205-207; XVI. 288; XVII. 110.
Evils of, in United States, VIII. 193; XVI. 285, 289, 359,--and in
France, VIII. 194; XVI. 359.
Testimony of English Parliamentary Report of 1857 on, VIII. 197-202.
In English history, VIII. 203 _et seq._;
and in French, VIII. 204.
See _Treasury Notes_.

Parchment, use of, in legislative proceedings, VIII. 372.
Proceedings for discontinuing use of, in Parliament, VIII. 376-379.

Pardoning Power, of the President, III. 219.
In common law, III. 224.
Under Maryland statutes, III. 225.
Under the Constitution, III. 226-230.
Story on, III. 227.
Judicial decisions on, III. 227-229.

Paris, Peace Congress at, III. 117.
Letter to American merchants in, VI. 56.

Parker, Theodore, reminiscence of, VII. 22.
On appointment of relations to office, XX. 114.

Parliament, English authorities on privileges of, VI. 93 _et seq._
Quorum of, IX. 169-171.
Powers of presiding officers of, XVI. 103-120, 125-127.
Usage of, in impeachments, XVI. 149-155, 158-160.
Authorities on its powers over its prisoners, XVI. 102-105.
Judicial decisions denying applicability of its laws to colonial
assemblies, XVI. 110-112.
Number of members of, XX. 2.
Cases in its history, illustrating rule for appointment of committees,
XX. 49-53.

Parties, and importance of a Free-Soil organization, II. 299.
Object of, II. 304; IV. 6; VI. 308.
Changes in, necessary, II. 304; IV. 6.
Webster on, II. 304.
Instances of changes in, in France, England, and United States, II.
305; IV. 7.
Evils of, II. 306; XI. 438.
Channing and Wayland on need of new, II. 312.
Political, and our foreign-born population, V. 62.
Strife of, during war, unpatriotic, IX. 198.

Pascal, on glory, II. 177.
On progress, II. 258.

Patents, in slave and free States, VI. 157.
Denial of, to colored inventors, VIII. 6.

Patriotism, heathen, exaggerated, I. 68.
Cicero on, I. 68.
Andrew Fletcher on, I. 69, 326; XII. 64; XIII. 123.
Natural, I. 70.
Higher, defined, I. 71.
Josiah Quincy on, I. 325.

Paul, St., his epistle to Philemon not an argument for slavery, V. 21-23.

Peabody, George, speech on resolution giving thanks of Congress to,
XIV. 317.

Peace, enjoyed by weak nations, I. 99.
Illustrations of, produced by gentleness, I. 102-107.
Victories of, I. 127.
Cause of, II. 330;
sneers at same, II. 331 _et seq._
Individual efforts for, II. 384-400; XVIII. 233-236.
Blessings of universal, II. 417; XVIII. 249.
Napoleon’s plans for, II. 419.
Plea for, II. 420.
Auguries of, II. 422.
A victory of, XIV. 301.
Inscription in Thibet declaring, XVIII. 250 _et seq._

Peace Congress, at Brussels, II. 402;
resolutions of same, II. 403.
At Paris, III. 117;
resolutions of same, III. 118.

Peace Society, American, address before, II. 323.
Object of, II. 331, 338.
Its aims not visionary, II. 333, 411.
Right of self-defence and revolution not denied by, II. 337.
Founded by W. Ladd, II. 400.

Pen, the, better than the sword, V. 58.

Penn, William, conduct of, to the Indians, I. 117.
His labors for peace, II. 387.

Pennsylvania System of prison discipline, established in Pa., I. 169;
II. 121.
Present, not solitary, I. 169.
Explained, I. 170; II. 117, 122.
Best promotes reformation, I. 173.
Objections to, refuted, I. 174-176; II. 144.
Foreign opinions on, I. 176; II. 132.
Adopted extensively in Europe, I. 177; II. 133-137, 146.
Advocated by E. Livingston and Miss Dix, I. 178;
and by Suringar, I. 180.
Unjustly treated by Boston Prison-Discipline Society, I. 179; II. 108,
124 _et seq._
Modes of applying, II. 123.
G. Combe on, II. 126-128.
Roscoe quoted on, II. 128.
Lafayette quoted on, II. 130.
Compared to Auburn system, II. 144-146.

Pensions, not granted for civil services in United States, IV. 233.

Peonage, prohibition of, XIV. 232.

Person, in the Constitution, includes slaves and Indians, III. 298; VIII.
277; XI. 194.

Petition, refusal of right of, to colored persons, VI. 288.
Right of, personal, VI. 289;
and secured by the Constitution to the people, VI. 294.
Interruption of right of, XIV. 86.

Pettigru, James L., of South Carolina, remarks on a resolution for
purchase of his law library, XIV. 103.

Phi Beta Kappa Oration, at Harvard University in 1846, I. 241.
At Union College, II. 240.

Phillips, Stephen C., Free-Soil candidate for Governor of Massachusetts
in 1848 and 1849, II. 317; III. 43.

Philology, comparative, value of, I. 257.

Physicians, colored, XVII. 186.

Pickering, John, biographical sketch of, I. 214.
Letters of Dr. Clarke to, quoted, I. 215.
Compared to Sir W. Jones, I. 237.
Tribute to, as scholar, in Phi Beta Kappa oration, I. 249-258.

Pierce, Franklin, President of United States, his usurpation in
abrogating treaty with Denmark, V. 101.
Admits illegal actions in Kansas, V. 162.
Has power to interfere in Kansas, V. 187, 191 _et seq._
Enforces surrender of Anthony Burns, V. 189 _et seq._
Compared to George III., V. 209 _et seq._, 238.

Pilgrim Forefathers, our, IV. 74-79; XX. 291.

Pinkney, William, on slavery, III. 289; VIII. 262; XII. 155.
Suggests Missouri Compromise in Senate, IV. 110, 117.

Plato, on honor, I. 64.
On true goodness, I. 123.
On atoning for slaughter by prayer, II. 362.

Plymouth, speech at festival of Aug. 1, 1853, IV. 73.

Plymouth Rock, finger-point from, IV. 73.

Politics, our, seen from a distance VI. 60.

Polk, Trusten, of Missouri, expulsion of, from the Senate, VIII. 12.

Polygamy, in Territories, may be suppressed by Congress, IV. 129; VII. 1.
In Utah, VII. 63.

Poor, Rear-Admiral, orders of, respecting San Domingo and Hayti, XIX. 57.
Interview of, with President of Hayti, XIX. 64-66.

Popular Sovereignty, not infringed by prohibition of slavery in
Territories, IV. 127.
Cannot establish slavery in same, V. 156; VI. 230, 364; VII. 41.
The pretended principle of Douglas party in 1860, VI. 362.
Proclaimed by Declaration of Independence, VI. 363; VII. 50; XVII.
217,--but limited by same, VI. 364; VII. 52; XVII. 218.
Origin and development of perversion of, VI. 365 _et seq._
True, defined, VII. 53.
Disturbing influence of pretension of, VII. 62.
See _Squatter Sovereignty_.

Population, amount required for admission of new States, V. 218-221.
Of slave and free States, VI. 144 _et seq._, 328.
Predicted increase of, in United States, VII. 47; XVI. 280; XVII. 239.

Portraits, the best, in engraving, XIX. 175.
Collections of, XIX. 177-179.

Portugal, British violation of territory of, XII. 27-32.
Testimony of, against slavery, XII. 173-175.

Post-Office, the, originally a source of revenue in England, XVIII.
62-64.
In the Colonies, XVIII. 66-68.
Need of reform in, in England, XVIII. 68;
testimony to same, XVIII. 72-75;
accomplishment of same, XVIII. 76.
Unjust burdens on United States, XVIII. 90-95.
Expense to, not caused by distance, XVIII. 95-97;
authorities proving same, XVIII. 95 _et seq._
Not a taxing machine, but a beneficent agency, XVIII. 107-109.
Need not support itself, XVIII. 109-112.

Postage, cheap ocean, III. 215; XVII. 1.
Amount collected in slave and free States, VI. 149.
In Continental Europe and England, XVIII. 61.
Penny, established in England, XVIII. 76;
results of same, XVIII. 77-80, 87, 104.
Need of cheap, in United States, XVIII. 81, 112.
Various rates of United States, XVIII. 82-85.
Results of reduction of, in England and United States, XVIII. 87-90.
See _One-cent Postage_.

Pownall, Thomas, XV. 371.
His writings and predictions concerning America, XV. 372-385.
Predictions opposed to his, XV. 385 _et seq._

President of the United States, pardoning power of the, III. 219.
Cannot abrogate treaties, V. 101 _et seq._
Had power to interfere in Kansas, V. 187, 191 _et seq._
Does not possess all war-powers, IX. 138-140.
Power of, over letters of marque, IX. 296-298.
His power of instituting State governments, XI. 365; XIV. 190,--Senator
Collamer on same, XIII. 43.
Protection against, XIV. 239.
A single term for and choice by direct vote of the people, XIV. 278.
Right of President of Senate _pro tem._ to vote on impeachment of the,
XVI. 88.
His powers of removal under the Constitution, XVI. 190-196.
Cannot, by his prerogative, refuse to execute the laws, XVI. 204-208.
Authorities on his treaty-making power, XIX. 79-81.
One term for, XIX. 168; XX. 157-161, 220,--testimony in favor of same,
XIX. 169-173; XX. 158, 221-223.
Obligations of, XX. 90.
His prerogative in regard to bestowing offices, XX. 115 _et seq._;
and in appointing his Cabinet, XX. 127 _et seq._
Influence of, should be diminished, XX. 161.

Presidential Election of 1856, our Bunker Hill, VI. 43.

Presidential Election of 1860, letters on, VI. 111, 287, 342; VII. 80.
Anticipated effects of Republican victory in, VI. 337-341, 377; VII.
78, 83 _et seq._
Candidates and issues of, VI. 352.
Real question of, VII. 39.
Evening before the, VII. 70.
Evening after the, VII. 76.
Ultimatum of the South in, VII. 333.
Result of, XII. 260.

Presidential Election of 1864, issues of, XI. 419, 433.
Parties of, XI. 420.
Congratulations on, XII. 1.

Presidential Election of 1868, issues at the, XVI. 326, 332.

Presidential Election of 1872, letter to colored citizens on, XX. 173.
Antecedents of candidates in, XX. 177-182;
nominations of same, XX. 182 _et seq._
Platforms in, XX. 183.
Watchword for, XX. 194.
Letter to Speaker Blaine on, XX. 196.
Speech on, XX. 209.

Presiding Officers, powers of, XVI. 99;
same must be decided by Parliamentary law, XVI. 102 _et seq._
Authorities respecting powers of, in House of Lords, XVI. 104-110.
Instances of, not members of House of Lords, XVI. 108, 110-119.
Authorities respecting powers of, in House of Commons and House of
Representatives, XVI. 126-129.

Press, the, in slave and free States, VI. 155.
Freedom of, restricted in slave States, VI. 184-186.

Prévost-Paradol, M., XVIII. 184.

Price, reduction of, increases consumption, XVIII. 86.

Price, Richard, on government, XIII. 203.
Labors of, XV. 366.
His predictions concerning America, XV. 367-370.

Prison Discipline, I. 166.
Separate system of, adopted by Pope Clement XI. and Howard, I. 167;
II. 122;
and by Pennsylvania, I. 169; II. 121.
Horrors of solitary system of, I. 170; II. 119.
Objects of, I. 172.
Subject of, universally interesting, I. 181.
Rival systems of, II. 104.
Labors of Roscoe and Lafayette in, II. 120.
Letter of De Tocqueville on, II. 148 (_note_).
See _Auburn System_, _Boston Prison-Discipline Society_, _Pennsylvania
System_, and _Prisons_.

Prisoners of War, treatment of, XII. 74;
Washington’s letter on same, XII. 76 _et seq._
Instructions of Secretary of War on exchange of, XII. 90.

Prisons, and prison discipline, article on, I. 163.
Miss Dix’s book on, I. 163.
In 18th century, II. 118.
King of Sweden’s book on, II. 136.

Private Wars in Dark Ages, I. 35; II. 343, 345; XVIII. 180.
Forbidden by John and Louis XI. of France, II. 344,--and by Maximilian,
Emperor of Germany, II. 345; XVIII. 181, 242.
Renounced by German Confederation, XVIII. 181, 242.

Privateering, proposition of Congress of Paris for abolishing, VIII. 76.
Mode of effectively abolishing, VIII. 76.
Abolition of, proposed by United States, VIII. 77.
J. Q. Adams on, VIII. 77; IX. 290.
Dangerous to United States, IX. 287.
Authorities on, IX. 287-289.
Early denounced by United States, IX. 289-291.

Privateers, substitute for, IX. 279, 292 _et seq._, 298 _et seq._, 315.
Useless against Rebellion, IX. 281, 314.
Evils of, IX. 282-284, 314.
Jefferson on, X. 136.

Prize Courts, IX. 49.
Example of their exclusive jurisdiction, IX. 50-52.
Authorities declaring necessity of, X. 129-131;
British precedent showing same, X. 135.

Prize Money, policy of, IX. 148.

Proclamation of Emancipation, speech on the, IX. 191.
Letters on, IX. 247; X. 259; XII. 60.
Lord Russell on, X. 20.
Adoption of, by Act of Congress, XI. 397.
Cannot be withdrawn, XI. 429-431, 474-476.
Lincoln’s issue of, XII. 265.
Its constitutionality defended, XII. 265, 266.
Influence of, XII. 285 _et seq._

Progress, the law of human, II. 241.
Defined, II. 267.
Same long unrecognized, II. 252,--but disclosed in part by Vico, II.
254.
Universal, II. 244, 275.
Not recognized in antiquity, II. 247.
Christianity the religion of, II. 251.
Announced by Leibnitz, II. 255,--by Lessing and Herder, II. 256,--by
Descartes, II. 257,--by Pascal, II. 258,--by Perrault and Fontenelle,
II. 260, and by Turgot, II. 262.
Condorcet’s Work on, II. 264.
Bacon’s ideas on, II. 265.
History of Greece and Rome not inconsistent with, II. 268-270.
Relation of China to, II. 270.
Indefinite duration of mankind favors, II. 274.
Proved by statistics of life, II. 274.
Gradual, II. 278; XVII. 179.
Resisted by prejudice, II. 279.
Examples of resistance to, II. 279-285.
Certainty of, II. 286-288; XVII. 177.
Faith in, encouraging, II. 286.
Agents of, XVII. 177.

Property, man can have none in man, VI. 131, 218, 319; VIII. 261; XI. 200
_et seq._
Value of, in slave and free States, VI. 146.
Confiscation of, in war, IX. 35; XVII. 13-15.
As a qualification for the franchise, XIII. 220, 297, 327.
See _Confiscation_.

Provisional governments and Reconstruction, IX. 162.
See _Military Government_.

Prussia, army of, in 1845, I. 75.
Relative expenditure of, for war-preparations, I. 78.
Military system of, in 1870, XVIII. 246.
Numerical size of its Parliament, XX. 2.
See _Franco-German War_ and _Germany_.

Publishers, letter to committee of, V. 58.

Pulci, his prediction of a new world, XV. 258.

Puritans, the, IV. 75 _et seq._

Quakers, escape of, from pirates, II. 46.
Opposed to slavery, III. 289; XII. 151-153.
Lincoln on, XII. 263.
See _Friends_.

Qualification, defined, XIII. 308; XVI. 248; XVII. 40.

Quincy, Josiah, on patriotism, I. 325.
Tribute to, VI. 37.

Quincy, Josiah, Jr., his report of Chatham’s speech quoted, I. 375.

Quorum, of the Senate, IX. 169; XII. 358.
In Parliament, IX. 169-171.
Fixed in United States by Constitution, IX. 171.
Authorities on rule for, IX. 172.
Of States, requisite for adoption of a constitutional amendment, XII.
357.
Powers of the two Houses of Congress in absence of a, XV. 185.

Races, all alike entitled to human rights, V. 18; XVII. 134.
Number and distinctions of, XVII. 148-151.
Origin of, XVII. 152.
Arguments for a common origin of, XVII. 153-157;
authorities favoring same, XVII. 155-157.
Common destiny of all, XVII. 162 _et seq._, 168, 178.

Railroad, Pacific, IV. 32; IX. 318.
Air-line, from Washington to New York, IX. 121.
Usurpation in New Jersey, XII. 105.

Railways, opposed at first by Quarterly Review, II. 283.

Rantoul, Robert, Jr., tribute to, III. 246.

Raynal, Guillaume, Abbé, his famous work, XV. 326 _et seq._
His predictions concerning America, XV. 329-331.

Ream, Vinnie, speech on contract with, for statue of Lincoln, XIV. 164.

Rebel Debt, repudiation of the, XII. 137, 327; XIII. 99.

Rebel Party, the, XVI. 326.

Rebel States, secession of, VII. 184; VIII. 119; X. 191.
A. H. Stephens on character of government of, VII. 315; X. 100 _et
seq._; XIX. 225.
Power of Congress over, VIII. 164-167, 245; IX. 120; X. 167; XI. 361;
XII. 329; XIV. 209, 225; XV. 218; XVIII. 31,--sources of above power,
VIII. 164-167, 245; X. 208-215; XI. 367-372; XII. 330-333; XIII.
124-127, 325 _et seq._; XIV. 341; XVI. 344-347.
Military government of, IX. 119; X. 168-175; XI. 365; XIV. 326.
Concession of ocean belligerence to, by England, X. 12-15, 124; XII.
267 _et seq._; XVII. 59-65; XIX. 121,--and by France, X. 41.
Not entitled to recognition by foreign powers, X. 97-124.
Constitution of, quoted, X. 100.
Other testimony to character of government of, X. 102.
Results of recognizing, X. 116-122;
apology for same, X. 122.
Not entitled to ocean belligerence, X. 125-139; XVII. 59 _et seq._
Theories for extinction of, X. 196, 200 _et seq._
Non-existence of governments in, X. 202; XIII. 126.
Readmission of, must be determined by Congress, XI. 296, 361, 366-372.
Lincoln’s plan for reorganizing, XI. 363 _et seq._; XIV. 196, 294.
Objections to recognition of, by U. S., XI. 466-471.
Participation of, not necessary in ratifying constitutional amendments,
XII. 101, 211, 341, 359; XIII. 31, 62; XVI. 71.
Guaranty of republican governments in, XII. 197.
Conditions precedent to reception of Senators from, XII. 208.
Lincoln on recognition of, XII. 269 _et seq._
Consent of the governed necessary in forming new governments of,
XII. 298.
Actual condition of, during Reconstruction period, XII. 320-322; XIII.
55; XIV. 87; XVI. 168,--testimony to same, XII. 323 _et seq._;
XIII. 64-96.
Need of public schools for all in, XII. 328; XIV. 334-339; XV. 220-227.
Oath to maintain a republican form of government in, XIII. 12, 22;
XIV. 330.
Senator Collamer on readmission of, XIII. 44.
Not republican in form, XIII. 204-211, 332.
Population of, in 1860, XIII. 204.
Illegality of existing governments in, in 1866, XIV. 190, 224.
Proper foundation of government in, XIV. 324.
Conditions of assistance to, XIV. 358.
Outrages on loyalists in, XVI. 168, 352; XVII. 103; XVIII. 301.
Legislation of, concerning freedmen, after Rebellion, XVI. 350
_et seq._
Claims of citizens in, XVII. 10.
Necessity of requiring test oath for legislatures of, XVII. 226-230.
Robberies of, after the war, XX. 247.
See _Slave States_.

Rebellion, emancipation our best weapon against the, VII. 241, 347;
IX. 76, 229; XI. 198.
Its origin and main-spring, VII. 250, 305; IX. 230, 323; X. 103;
XI. 444; XIII. 234.
Its audacity, VII. 250.
Its beginning, VII. 315, 325; VIII. 119-123; XI. 441-443; XII. 258.
Object of, VII. 315.
Preparations for, VII. 322-324; VIII. 119-122.
Numbers of its armed forces, VII. 338.
Necessity of crushing at once, VII. 345; IX. 207, 272.
A fact, IX. 13 _et seq._
Must be comprehended and vigorously treated, IX. 210-212.
Must fail, X. 142, 168.
Rejoicing in its decline, XI. 414.
Slavery and the: speech in New York, XI. 433.
Official history of, XIV. 88.
Consequences of, XVI. 262 _et seq._
See _War of the Rebellion_.

Rebels, barbarities of, VIII. 301.
Are criminals and enemies, IX. 17, 141.
Sources of power against, IX. 18-24, 47 _et seq._, 134, 143; XVII.
16,--judicial decisions and other authorities on same, IX. 18-22;
XVII. 17 _et seq._
Proceedings for confiscating property of, allowable, IX. 31-33.
Must be subdued, not conciliated, IX. 210.
Disqualified from national office by Congress, X. 219; XII. 337.
Lincoln’s policy towards, XII. 284.
Should be disfranchised for a time, XII. 337-339, 408; XIII. 283; XIV.
185, 291; XV. 219, 228; XVII. 115 _et seq._
Mr. Sumner’s sentiments towards, XII. 339; XIV. 313; XV. 228; XVII.
115; XIX. 258, 318; XX. 192-194, 213, 229-240.
Submission of, after the war, XIV. 187;
testimony to same, XIV. 187, 188.
Time for reconciliation with, XX. 253 _et seq._

Reciprocity Treaty, termination of the Canadian, XII. 46.
Its operation, XII. 48-54.

Recognition, intervention by, X. 87;
instances of same, X. 87-94.
Armed, X. 95.
Unarmed, X. 95.
Proper time for, X. 95-97.
Of a _de facto_ power, not required by international law, X. 105.
Authorities on refusal of, X. 106-108, 111-114, 119.
Practice of nations as to, X. 110 _et seq._

Reconstruction of rebel States, resolutions on, VIII. 163; X. 295.
Letter on, VIII. 243.
Provisional governments and, IX. 162.
And adoption of Emancipation Proclamation by Act of Congress, XI. 397.
Mr. Ashley and, XII. 7.
None, without votes of the blacks, XII. 179.
Conditions of, XII. 325-329; XIII. 33, 283; XIV. 92.
Equal rights _vs._ the Presidential policy in, XII. 368.
Andrew Johnson on, XII. 369, 408; XIV. 197, 294; XVII. 231,--and his
policy in, XII. 369; XIV. 188-197, 203, 250-253; XVI. 165-171.
Scheme of, on basis of equal rights, XIII. 21.
Time and, XIII. 428.
True principles of, XIV. 224.
At last, with colored suffrage and protection against rebel influence,
XIV. 282.
Speeches on bills for, XIV. 282, 321; XV. 217.
Further guaranties in, XIV. 304; XV. 219-221.
Measures of, not a burden or penalty, XIV. 312.
Military government unsuited for, XIV. 326, 342.
Mr. Sumner’s bill for, XIV. 328-334.
Incomplete, XV. 226; XVI. 342; XVII. 307; XVIII. 302.
A political question, XVI. 346.
Power and duty of Congress to protect and regulate, XVII. 208; XVIII.
26-32.
With colored suffrage, Mr. Sumner’s personal record on, XVII. 303.

Reconstruction Acts, defended, XVI. 342-349.
Opposition to, in rebel States, XVI. 352.
Do not bind Congress to admit rebel States, XVII. 208-210, 224-226.

Redemption, Society of Fathers of, II. 36.

Redpath, James, letters to, VI. 44, 54.

Reform, true, defined, II. 289; III. 248.
And purity in government, XX. 5.

Reform League of New York, letter to, XIX. 131.

Representation, according to voters, IV. 46, 53; XII. 104; XIII. 19,
315-321.
Authorities on right of, XIII. 301; XVII. 44-46.
Jefferson and Madison on, XIII. 320.
Hamilton on, XIII. 329.
See _Blaine Amendment_ and _Representative System_.

Representative System, necessary improvements in, in Massachusetts,
III. 43; IV. 35, 58-60.
And its proper basis, IV. 33.
Origin and nature of, IV. 36-53; XIII. 318.
Founded on equality in America, IV. 38.
Its history in Massachusetts, IV. 39;
evils of, in same, IV. 40.
Essex County documents on, quoted, IV. 40-43.
Jefferson’s plan for, IV. 44; XIII. 320.
Under the Constitution, IV. 45.
In France, IV. 45.
Vindication of Rule of Three in, IV. 47-53;
opposition to same in Massachusetts, IV. 53-56.
Amendment to, in Massachusetts, XIII. 317.

Reprisals, none, on innocent persons, XVI. 297.
Condemned, XVI. 301.
Authorities on, XVI. 301-306.
Modern rule for, XVI. 304;
reasons for same, XVI. 305.
Instance of, in modern history, XVI. 307.
See _Retaliation_.

Republic, slave-holding, a mockery, I. 308; III. 3; IX. 235.
Rejected definitions of, XI. 192; XIII. 144-153.
Machiavelli on regeneration of a, XI. 213.
See _Republican Government_.

Republican Conventions, speeches at, IV. 255; VI. 352; VII. 241; XII.
305; XVII. 98.

Republican Government, American definition of, XI. 193; XII. 295, 297;
XIII. 196 _et seq._, 327; XVI. 245; XVII. 43.
Our first duty, XIII. 1.
Oath to maintain, in rebel States, XIII. 12, 22; XIV. 330.
Must be defined by Congress, XIII. 63, 137 _et seq._, 211, 327; XVI.
245; XVII. 43, 334, 358.
Disfranchisement inconsistent with, XIII. 109.
Principles of, asserted by fathers of the Republic, XIII. 153-198.
Webster on, XIII. 187 _et seq._
Testimony of France to, XIII. 198-202.
Other definitions of, XIII. 202 _et seq._, 330; XV. 294.
Object of, XX. 94.
See _Guaranty of Republican Government_.

Republican Party, formation of the, IV. 255.
Its duties and aims, IV. 263-265; V. 81 _et seq._; VI. 312; XI. 421;
XIX. 129.
Origin and necessity of, IV. 266; V. 80; VI. 303; XX. 86 _et seq._
Its hopes of success, IV. 278; VI. 341.
In New York, V. 60.
Letter on the, V. 61.
National, not sectional, V. 146.
Appeal for its candidates in 1856, VI. 2.
Its declaration of principles in same year, VI. 4.
Appeal for its cause, VI. 15, 354; VII. 17.
Letters on its candidates in 1860, VI. 111, 342.
Platform of, in 1860, VI. 234 _et seq._
Speech on, in New York, VI. 303.
Permanence of, VI. 336; XVIII. 172.
Parties opposed to, in 1860, VI. 356; VII. 17, 26.
The only Union party, VII. 37.
The only Constitutional party and party of freedom, VII. 38.
Not aggressive, but conservative, VII. 86.
Should be moderate after victory, VII. 87.
And Democratic Party in 1864, XI. 418.
Its past and future work, XI. 422; XVIII. 169.
Its platform in 1864, XI. 426, 477.
Unity and strength of, XII. 4.
Mr. Sumner’s devotion to, XX. 85.
Change for the worse in, XX. 89, 170.
Duty of, as to reëlection of Grant, XX. 156.

Republicanism _vs._ Grantism, XX. 83.

Repudiation, XVI. 275; XVII. 105 _et seq._
Adopted by Rebel party in 1868, XVI. 329; XVII. 104.
Two forms of, XVI. 356; XVII. 107 _et seq._
Is confiscation, XVII. 106.
Cost of, XVII. 108 _et seq._
Impossible, XVII. 111.

Retaliation, and treatment of prisoners of war, XII. 74.
Authorities respecting, XII. 78-82, 86-89.
Recognized, but limited, by laws of war, XII. 80, 92.
See _Prisoners of War_ and _Reprisals_.

Revels, Hiram R., speech on admission of, as Senator from Mississippi,
XVIII. 6.

Revolution, right of, II. 336;
Paley on same, II. 336;
O’Connell on same, II. 337.

Revolutionary War, opposed by English Whigs in Parliamentary debates, I.
340-349.
Compared to Mexican War, I. 382.
Contributions of Northern and Southern States to, IV. 197 _et seq._;
American and foreign testimony to same, IV. 199-211.
Lafayette’s enthusiasm for, VII. 111.
List of statutes for confiscation of property in, IX. 59-64;
same defended by American diplomatists and courts, IX. 65-69.
Testimony to employment of slaves in, IX. 217-220.
Contrasted with our Civil War, X. 24, 256-258; XII. 238; XVII. 301.
Object of, XIII. 154, 172; XVI. 55.
Official history of, XIV. 88.

Rhode Island, appeal to Republicans of, in 1856, VI. 9.

Richard, Henry, M.P., letter to, XX. 273.

Right of Search, employed by Great Britain to impress American seamen,
VIII. 42;
testimony to same, VIII. 42-45, 51 _et seq._,--and to opposition of
United States Government to same, VIII. 45-54.
Should not exist, except for suppression of slave-trade, VIII. 78;
proposed by Great Britain for same, VIII. 339, 343,--but refused by
United States, VIII. 341.
Not objectionable against slave-trade, VIII. 344.
Exercise of, by privateers, IX. 282.
Should be employed only by national ships, IX. 299.
See _Neutral Rights_.

Rights. See _Civil Rights_, _Equal Rights_, _Human Rights_, _Neutral
Rights_, _Rights of War_, and _State Rights_.

Rights of War, IX. 1, 34; X. 210; XIII. 325,--especially against enemy
property, IX. 35-44.
Authorities respecting, IX. 36 _et seq._; XIII. 326.
Include liberation of slaves, IX. 43, 71, 131, 146.
Have no constitutional limitations, IX. 45, 71, 131-138, 183-185, 216.
To be exercised only in war, IX. 48 _et seq._
Policy of exercising, against Rebels, IX. 70-72.
Not to be exercised by the President alone, IX. 138-140.

Roads, policy of, III. 182.

Roberts, Joseph, Rev., his work on caste quoted, III. 76-80; XVII. 144.

Roscoe, William, labors of, for reform of prisons, II. 120.
Incorrectly quoted on Pennsylvania system, II. 128.

Rousseau, treatise of, on peace, II. 391; XVIII. 233.
His opinions on equality, III. 60, 91; XIX. 235.
On slavery, VI. 137.

Russell, Earl, on Trent case, VIII. 35.
On the Emancipation Proclamation, X. 20.
His unfriendliness to United States during Rebellion, X. 39.
On necessity of prize courts, X. 130 _et seq._
On escape of the Alabama, XVII. 66.

Russia, army of, in 1845, I. 75.
Navy of, in 1837, I. 76.
Serfdom in, restricted to original country, IV. 96.
Emancipation of serfs in, VII. 267; XII. 312-314; XIII. 57-60; XIV.
57, 315.
The Emperor of, and emancipation, XIV. 56.
Cession of Russian America to United States by, XV. 1;
reasons for same, XV. 20-23.
Friendship of, for United States, XV. 48-50.

Russian America, cession of, to United States, XV. 1.
Boundaries and configuration of, XV. 6-8.
Russia’s title to, XV. 8-17.
Discovery of, by Behring, XV. 8-14.
French claim to, XV. 17.
Spanish claim to, XV. 18-20.
Reasons for cession of, XV. 20-23.
Humboldt on, XV. 22, 47.
Origin and completion of cession of, XV. 23-30.
Documents respecting, quoted, XV. 25-29.
Treaty for cession of, XV. 30-32;
questions under same, XV. 32-35;
advantages of same, XV. 36-50.
Sources of information upon, XV. 54-64.
Blodget’s description of, XV. 65.
Government of, XV. 65-80.
Population of, XV. 81-94.
Climate of, XV. 94-105.
Vegetable products of, XV. 105-116.
Mineral products of, XV. 116-124.
Furs of, XV. 125-141.
Fisheries of, XV. 141-161.
New name for, XV. 167.
Other requirements of, XV. 168 _et seq._
Necessity of legislation to carry out treaty for cession of, XV.
196-199.

St. Albans Raid, the, XII. 42.

Saint-Pierre, Charles de, Abbé, labors of, for peace, II. 387-390; XVIII.
233.
Leibnitz on his “Project of Perpetual Peace,” II. 389; XVIII. 233.
D’Argenson on, XV. 287.

San Domingo, speech on proposed annexion of, to United States, XVIII.
257.
Character and object of joint resolution appointing a commission to,
XVIII. 262-267.
Negotiation for annexion of, XVIII. 267-271; XIX. 37 _et seq._, 54-57;
XX. 144-146, 217 _et seq._
Belligerent intervention of United States navy in, XVIII. 271, 303;
XIX. 27, 60-64, 75.
Sentiments of people of, on annexion, XVIII. 276.
Relations of, with Hayti, XVIII. 278-280.
President Grant’s message on annexion of, XVIII. 284-288.
Arguments against annexion of, XVIII. 290-292, 303; XIX. 96;
testimony against same, XVIII. 304.
Speech on resolutions concerning, XIX. 16.
Reason for interest in annexion of, XIX. 20-22.
Reannexion of, by Spain, XIX. 23;
Spanish documents on same, quoted, XIX. 24-26;
result of same, XIX. 29.
Treaty for annexion of, an infraction of its constitution, XIX. 38
_et seq._
Duty of United States towards, XIX. 93, 97, 131.

San Juan Boundary Question, report of Committee on Foreign Relations on
settlement of, VII. 216.

Sanborn, Frank B., speeches on case of, VI. 99.

Sandwich Islands, mail service between United States and, XIV. 110.
Relations of, with United States, XIV. 111.

Scholar, jurist, artist, and philanthropist, the, oration on, I. 241.
Defined, I. 249.

Schools. See _Colored Schools_, _Common Schools_, _Normal Schools_, and
_Separate Schools_.

Schurz, Carl, Senator from Missouri, on Secretary Fish’s attack on Mr.
Sumner, XIX. 110.

Schwartz, John, Representative from Pennsylvania, speech on death of,
VI. 300.

Scott, Sir Walter, compared to Cobbett, I. 198.
On morning work, I. 204.

Scylla and Charybdis, origin and history of Latin verse on, XII. 371-380;
application of same, XII. 409-412.

Seamen, wages of, in case of wreck, IV. 324;
rule for determining same, IV. 325;
abolition of above rule by England, IV. 326.

Secession, pretended right of, VII. 326; IX. 323.
Proposed concessions to prevent, VII. 327-333.
Acts of, impotent against United States, VIII. 164; X. 196.

Secretary of State, assistant, office of, and Mr. Hunter, XIV. 82.

Security, the national, and the national faith, XII. 305.

Selden, John, on trial by battle (or duel), I. 38 (_note_), 42;
XVIII. 179.

Self-defence, right of, I. 294, 378.
Restrictions on, II. 334.
Dymond, the Quaker, on, II. 335.

Self-government, local, advantages of, XVI. 59.

Senate of the United States, secrecy in its proceedings, IV. 16;
XVIII. 9.
Functions of, IV. 16; XIII. 347.
Origination of appropriation bills by, a usurpation, V. 84.
Cannot abrogate treaties, V. 101, 109.
Usurpation of, in imprisoning a citizen, VI. 80; XIX. 133.
Its powers of enforcing testimony, VI. 82 _et seq._, 89 _et seq._;
XIX. 132.
Cannot enforce testimony in Harper’s Ferry investigation, VI.
84-87,--in order to aid legislation, VI. 86, 91; XIX. 141.
Attempt to kidnap a citizen under order of, VI. 99.
Has discretionary power to expel members, VIII. 116.
Limitation of debate in, VIII. 155.
Order in its business, VIII. 161.
Loyalty in the, VIII. 208; X. 273; XVI. 73.
Should examine loyalty before administering oath, VIII. 215; XVI. 76.
Sacredness of its required oath, VIII. 221.
Proper despatch of business in, IX. 110.
Constitutional quorum of, IX. 169; XII. 358.
Representation of Virginia in, XII. 134.
Limitation of its business, XV. 189.
Obligations of caucuses of, XV. 189, 207-215.
Privileges of debate in, on officers liable to impeachment, XV. 241,
249.
Right of President of, _pro tem._, to vote on impeachment of the
President, XVI. 88;
authorities denying same, XVI. 90.
Powers of, in trying impeachments, not judicial, XVI. 137, 228.
Testimony to early want of eloquence in, XVII. 191.
Consideration of treaties in open, XVIII. 9.
Eligibility to: the question of inhabitancy, XVIII. 11.
Cannot continue imprisonment of witnesses after end of the session,
XIX. 134, 153;
English and American authorities proving same, XIX. 134-140.
Does not possess the prerogatives of the House of Lords, XIX. 136.
Arguments and authorities against its power of arresting witnesses for
violation of its privileges, XIX. 140-149.
Power of, to break into telegraph-offices, XIX. 149.
Parliamentary law on appointment of special committees of, XX. 45;
authorities stating same, XX. 49-54, 56-59.

Senate Chamber, the: its ventilation and size, XIV. 119.

Senator of the United States, letters written during election of a,
in Massachusetts, in 1851, III. 152.
Acceptance of office of, III. 161; VI. 46,--incompatibility of same
with other office, VIII. 105.
Position of a, VIII. 118, 147.
Loyalty a qualification required in a, VIII. 208; X. 276; XVI. 74
_et seq._
Is a civil officer, X. 281;
authorities proving same, X. 281-289.
Cannot vote for himself, XIV. 15;
same proved by natural law, XIV. 16-19,--and by parliamentary law,
XIV. 20.
Inquiry into title of a, to his seat, XIV. 126.
The first colored, XVIII. 6.
Limitations on examination of a, by Senate committees, XX. 46;
authorities stating same, XX. 47.

Senators, conditions precedent to reception of, from a rebel State,
XII. 208.
Majority or plurality in election of, XIV. 1.
Mode of electing, XIV. 3 _et seq._;
Chancellor Kent on same, XIV. 5.
Powers of State Legislature in electing, XIV. 6-13.
Open voting in election of, XIV. 105.
Monuments to deceased, XIV. 299.
Colored, predicted, XV. 220, 223.
Constitutional responsibility of, for their votes in cases of
impeachment, XVI. 227.
Importance of colored, XVI. 257; XVIII. 7.

Seneca, his prophecy of a new world, XV. 256.

Separate Schools for colored children, argument against, III. 51.
A violation of equality, III. 70; XIX. 241.
Introduce principle of caste, III. 74.
Not equivalent to common schools, III. 86-88; XIX. 3, 158, 165,
241, 261.
Origin of, in Boston, III. 91-93.
Evils of, III. 93-96; XIX. 241-244.

Separate System of prison discipline. See _Pennsylvania System_.

Serenade, address at a, Aug. 9, 1872, XX. 202.

Servants, indented, in America, X. 348-350; XIX. 14.

Service, substituted for “servitude” in the Constitution, III. 309;
VI. 228; X. 358.
See _Fugitives from service_.

Settlement, a final, union of good citizens for, IX. 187.

Sewall, Samuel, Judge, IV. 277; XV. 281.
His prophecy concerning America, XV. 282-286.

Seward, William H., views of, on pensions for support of Fugitive-Slave
Bill, IV. 230.
His bill for admission of Kansas, V. 216.
His influence on President Johnson, XIV. 198.
Letter of, on surplus of Chinese indemnity fund, XVIII. 138
(_Appendix_).

Sharp, Granville, life of, as illustration of a merchant’s duties,
IV. 293-323.

Shaw, Robert G., Colonel, equestrian statue of, XII. 361.
Burial of, XIX. 246.

Sheridan, Richard Brinsley, on the American War, I. 326, 349.
On Slavery, XII. 161.
On America, XV. 406.

Sherman, John, Senator from Ohio, criticisms of, answered, IX. 99-104;
X. 263-266.
Reply to his criticisms in Reconstruction debate, XIV. 292-296,
313-316.
Answer to his defence of appointment of San Domingo commission, XVIII.
262-264.

Shipley, Jonathan, Bishop of St. Asaph, XV. 332.
His predictions concerning America, XV. 334-338.

Shipping, decay of, in United States, XVI. 289.
Effect of taxation on, XVII. 243.

Ships of War, fitted out in England against United States during
Rebellion, X. 27-29, 132; XVII. 65-71,--same defended in England,
but condemned by United States Supreme Court, X. 29-31.
Policy of United States on fitting out, as a neutral, X. 32-35;
liability of England for same, X. 37-39; XVII. 89, 124,--authority
proving above liability, X. 38.

Sidney, Algernon, author of motto on seal of Massachusetts, I. 94
(and _note_).
On government, XIII. 155.

Slave, origin of word, II. 13.
Webster’s Dictionary on original meaning of, II. 14.
Deed of manumission of a, in 1776, III. 13; VII. 14.
Tintoretto’s Miracle of the, III. 134 (see _note_).

Slave-Masters, number of, III. 36; V. 42; VI. 326; VII. 334.
Cannot carry slaves into Territories, IV. 128 _et seq._; VI. 217-235.
Refuse to work, VI. 142.
Character of, VI. 162, 321 _et seq._; IX. 103,--testimony to same,
VI. 163-168.
Their virtues exceptional, VI. 167-323.
In their relations with slaves, VI. 168-173.
Their agents, VI. 173, 175.
Their relations with each other, society, and government, VI.
176-196,--testimony to same, VI. 180-182, 186.
Conduct of, in Congress, VI. 196-211.
Unconscious of barbarism of slavery, VI. 211-214.
Tourgueneff on, VI. 215.
Livingstone on, VI. 216.
Their success in organizing rebellion explained, VII. 335.
Tax on, IX. 93.
Testimony to untrustworthiness of, to legislate for freedmen, IX. 225;
XIV. 211-213.
Their pretension to chivalry refuted, XI. 449-460.
Untrustworthiness of, proved by reason, XIV. 213.
Pretensions of, in regard to slavery, XVI. 234.

Slave Power, necessity of political action against the, II. 207.
Influence of, II. 211, 232, 292; III. 20, 140; V. 42; VI. 312, 325;
VII. 248.
Union among men of all parties against, II. 226; IV. 157.
Defined, II. 229.
Constitution of United States opposed to, II. 230.
Its test for office, II. 232; VI. 330.
Usurpations of, III. 20-22; V. 43, 66-71; VI. 328 _et seq._
Must be overthrown, IV. 262; V. 45, 71; VI. 339.
Its madness, V. 57.
Its aims in Kansas, V. 70, 140.
Attempts to introduce slavery into free States, V. 71.
Author of crime against Kansas, V. 142.
Its influence over President Pierce, V. 189.
Denounced, VI. 331-335.
Emancipation of national government from, VII. 248.

Slave States, compared to Barbary States, II. 7; VI. 159-161,--and to
free States, VI. 142-159, 328.
Their ignorance, VI. 157; XIV. 336.
Testimony to violence in, VI. 180-182.
Freedom of press restricted in, VI. 184-187.
Outrages on Northern men in, VI. 187-189, 191-196.
Threat of disunion by, VII. 25, 319-321.
Disunion no remedy for grievances of, VII. 33.
Not unanimous in desiring disunion, VII. 34; IX. 228,--effects of same
upon, VII. 35-37.
Passion for slavery in, VII. 321.
Webster on admission of new, IX. 124 _et seq._
Laws of, on exclusion of colored testimony, XI. 4-16;
eccentric judicial decisions in, on same, XI. 17-23.
See _Rebel States_.

Slave-Trade, originally a mark of progress in Africa, II. 18.
In England, II. 18; XVII. 166.
Sanctioned in West Indies by Charles V., II. 24.
Opposition to early English efforts against, II. 285; IV. 133; V. 37;
VI. 190.
Resolutions against, in Danbury, Conn., in 1774, III. 14.
Abolished in District of Columbia, III. 125.
Compromise on, in Constitution, III. 304; VII. 318.
Granville Sharp on, IV. 301.
In the North in early times, no example for us, V. 148.
Early support of, by England, V. 149; X. 71; XIII. 313.
Final suppression of the, VIII. 336.
Treaties between Great Britain and United States against, VIII.
337, 341.
Efforts of United States and Europe against, VIII. 338-341,--especially
of Great Britain, VIII. 339, 343; X. 74-77.
Means for suppression of, defended, VIII. 344-347.
Abolition of, in French, Dutch, and Spanish colonies, X. 75.
Authorities on illegality of, X. 108.
Abolition of the coast-wise, XII. 380.
Paley’s exertions against, XV. 403.
See _Right of Search_.

Slavery, the wrong of, I. 149.
Decision of Chief-Justice Shaw on, I. 290, 308; XII. 146.
Channing’s labors against, I. 290-293.
Influence of, universal, I. 307.
Cause of Mexican War, I. 307, 322, 335, 377.
Exertions of Massachusetts against, I. 308; VII. 13-16, 264.
Declarations of authors of Constitution against, I. 312; II. 230; III.
17, 277-280; VI. 227, 313; X. 356.
Should be constitutionally repealed, I. 309.
And the Mexican War, I. 333.
Whigs pledged to overthrow, I. 336.
R. C. Winthrop’s actions in regard to, I. 337.
White, in Barbary States, II. 1.
In antiquity, II. 14.
A result of war, II. 16, 19.
In modern times, II. 18.
White, in Algiers, compared by different authorities to American, II.
63-69.
The Koran on, II. 93.
Milton on, II. 100; XI. 204.
Black, in Barbary States, II. 101.
Necessity of political action against extension of, II. 207.
Condemned in East, II. 209.
Lafayette’s opinions and plans concerning, II. 210; VII. 124, 126, 129,
146, 149, 157; XII. 169.
No compromise with, II. 211, 234; IV. 266; VII. 204, 331; IX. 271.
Union among men of all parties against extension of, II. 226.
Patrick Henry on, II. 230; III. 288; XII. 150.
The only important American question, II. 237; III. 12, 142, 270;
V. 35, 63.
Appeal to all parties against, II. 238; III. 143; IV. 5, 158.
Opposition to its extension, principle of Free-Soil Party, II. 307;
III. 26;
but not of Whig Party, II. 307.
Discussion of, cannot be silenced, III. 12, 142, 270; IV. 132; VI. 317.
Illustrations of opposition to, at the time of the Revolution,
III. 13-16.
Not authorized by the Constitution, III. 16, 276, 296; IV. 346; VI.
314; VII. 1; XI. 186-189, 196.
Evils of, III. 23; IV. 95; V. 11; VI. 126, 321; XI. 475,--Jefferson on
same, III. 23; IV. 175.
Extension of, threatened, III. 24.
Is sectional, III. 237, 242, 267, 273; IV. 128; VI. 361.
Union against sectionalism of, III. 240.
Cannot exist unless specially legalized, III. 275; VI. 223; VIII. 274;
X. 343; XI. 187, 236.
Did not exist under national jurisdiction in 1789, III. 285; VI. 314.
Opposed by government at that time, III. 286; IV. 122,--by the country,
III. 288; IV. 122; VI. 314,--by the Church, III. 289; VI. 313; XII.
151-154,--and by colleges and literature, III. 291; VI. 313;
XII. 149.
Actions of 1st Congress in regard to, III. 293; IV. 121.
Unconstitutional under national jurisdiction, III. 297, 299; V. 156;
VI. 230; VIII. 265, 274-278; X. 214; XI. 195.
Influence of, on national government, III. 300; IV. 122; VI. 312, 325.
In England, III. 301; VIII. 278,--declared illegal in same, III. 302;
IV. 313; VIII. 279.
Sympathy with escapes from, III. 353.
German emigrants should oppose, IV. 19.
Defined, IV. 95; VI. 129.
Prohibition of, in Territories, all-important, IV. 99; VI.
378,--legality of same, IV. 125; VI. 233; VII. 1.
Influence of, on Northern men, IV. 131.
Duke of Clarence on, IV. 134.
Agitation against, not dangerous to the Union, IV. 134.
Mr. Sumner’s final protest against, in Nebraska and Kansas, for himself
and N. E. clergy, IV. 140.
History of, in Mass., IV. 187-190; VII. 11-15; XI. 448; XII. 145.
Labors of Granville Sharp against, IV. 300, 316; VIII. 279; XI. 237;
XII. 161.
Brougham on, IV. 315; VIII. 262.
Brought before Congress by Southern members, IV. 346; VI. 375.
Not sanctioned by Christianity, V. 19.
Duties of the North in regard to, V. 38-48; VI. 317.
A new outrage for, V. 52.
Growth of opposition to, V. 81.
Example of Washington against, V. 95.
Macaulay on, VI. 71.
Presentation of petitions against, VI. 106.
The barbarism of, VI. 113, 346; VII. 1; XII. 290.
Defended by Southern Senators, VI. 122.
Incompatible with civilization, VI. 127.
Barbarism of, shown in its laws, VI. 129, 170, 319.
Five elements of, VI. 131-136, 319, 360; VIII. 263.
Motive of, VI. 137, 320, 360; VIII. 263.
Rousseau on, VI. 137.
Origin of law of, VI. 139-142; VIII. 263.
Practical results of, in slave States, VI. 142-161.
Its influence on emigration and value of border lands, VI. 158.
Outrages for, VI. 187-196.
Conduct of slave-masters in Congressional debates on, VI. 202-211.
Opinions of Calhoun and Adams on, VI. 306.
Favoring influences of, in United States, VI. 314; VII. 322.
Gurowski’s book on, VI. 347.
Motive for extension of, VI. 354.
Letter on unconstitutionality of, VII. 1.
Example of Massachusetts against, VII. 5.
No popular sovereignty in Territories can establish, VII. 41.
Prohibited in Territories by United States Government from the first,
VII. 58.
The cause of the Civil War, VII. 250, 338; IX. 230, 323; X. 103; XI.
444.
Must be overthrown by that war, VII. 252, 351; X. 140, 296; XI. 417,
464.
Ceases legally and constitutionally on lapse of rebel States, VIII.
165; X. 215; XI. 473; XII. 266.
Founded on force, VIII. 263;
judicial decisions declaring same, VIII. 264.
History of British intervention against, X. 71-84.
Recognition of, by nations, forbidden by morality and prudence, X. 109,
110.
Guaranties against, X. 295.
Sources of power over, in the Constitution, XI. 190-196.
Mode of overthrowing, XI. 206.
Prohibition of, in foreign constitutions, XI. 226.
And the Rebellion: speech, XI. 433.
In American history, XI. 462.
Objections to recognizing in the Union, XI. 472-476.
Results of overthrowing, XI. 482.
Testimony against, by American States and European countries before
1789, XII. 144-177.
Lincoln on, XII. 282.
Precaution against revival of, XIV. 234; XVI. 350.
See _Abolition of Slavery_, _Algerine Slavery_, _Barbary States_,
_Emancipation_, _Slaves_, and _Slave-Trade_.

Slavery and Freedmen, appointment of committee on, X. 271.

Slaves, sufferings of, when transferred from Northern to Southern slave
States, I. 156.
First brought to English colonies of North America, II. 26; VII. 8;
X. 261; XI. 445.
White, in Barbary States, II. 8-12, 21-101; VIII. 283-298;
petitions of American, in same, quoted, II. 59, 60; VIII. 291;
black, in same, II. 101.
Laws of Maryland on stealing and transporting, III. 220.
Proceedings against Drayton and Sayres for liberation of, III. 221-223.
Definition of, in laws of slave States, V. 12; VI. 129, 319.
Compensation for emancipation of, V. 26; VII. 268; VIII. 259, 280;
XI. 199, 204.
Not dangerous to masters, if released, V. 28.
Testimony to relations of masters with, VI. 168-175.
Burning of, alive, VI. 322.
Are persons, not property, according to the Constitution, VI. 361;
VII. 315, 370.
Number of, in United States, fit for military service, VII. 266.
Dread of, in ancient wars, VII. 266.
Danger of insurrection by, VII. 267.
Involuntary assistance of, to Rebellion, VII. 339;
testimony to same, VII. 339.
Ransom of, at national capital, VIII. 251.
Liberation of, included in rights of war, IX. 43, 71, 131, 146.
Information in regard to freeing, by our armies, IX. 82.
Help from, and protection of, IX. 83, 214.
Debates in Federal Convention on taxing, IX. 94.
Aid of, necessary against Rebellion, IX. 212, 227;
appeal to, for same, defended, IX. 215-227.
Testimony to employment of, in war, especially in the Revolution,
IX. 217-220.
Exclusion of testimony of, especially in slave States of America,
XI. 5-34;
reasons for same considered, XI. 34-41.
Judicial testimony to propriety of examining, under oath, XI. 35
_et seq._
At first represented by their masters, XIII. 188, 196.
See _Algerine Slavery_, _Barbary States_, _Emancipation_, _Freedmen_,
_Fugitive Slaves_, _Slave-Masters_, _Slave-Trade_, and _Slavery_.

Sleep, amount of, required, I. 202-204.

Slidell, John, VIII. 32.
Seizure of, on the Trent, VIII. 33.
Benjamin Franklin and, at Paris, X. 221.

Smith, Adam, on slave-masters, VI. 165; XII. 159.
On value of metals, XI. 271.
His prophecy concerning America, XV. 363;
same anticipated by John Adams, XV. 364.

Smith Brothers, protest and opinion on case of the, XII. 209.
Testimony of Hon. S. Hooper on case of, XII. 216;
and of witnesses for the prosecution, XII. 217-219, 220, 222.

Snelling, George H., letter to, VI. 96.

Soldiers, modern, generally unsuccessful as statesmen, XX. 95;
same stated by Buckle, XX. 96.

Somerset Case, the, III. 302; IV. 304-313; VIII. 279; XI. 236; XII. 158.

South Carolina, disobedience to law in, IV. 185.
Expulsion of Hon. Samuel Hoar from, IV. 186; VI. 193-196.
Tribute to, IV. 195.
Testimony to her weakness in Revolutionary War, IV. 198, 200-211;
IX. 222.
Compared to Kansas, V. 241 _et seq._
Reluctant at first to enter the Union, VII. 28, 317.
Testimony to character of early settlers of, XI. 450, 459.
Prohibition of colored suffrage in, XIII. 193.
Honor to a constant Union man of, XIV. 103.

Sovereignty, rights of, and rights of war, IX. 1; X. 296.
Constitutional limitations on rights of, against criminals, IX. 25-30.
See _Popular Sovereignty_ and _Squatter Sovereignty_.

Spain, testimony of, against slavery, quoted by Prescott and Mackintosh,
XII. 170-173.
Her growth into a nation, XVI. 17.
Duty of, towards Cuba, XVII. 118-120.
Revolt of American colonies of, XVII. 197.
Reannexion of San Domingo by, XIX. 23-26;
result of same, XIX. 29.
Numerical size of its Cortes, XX. 3.

Sparks, Jared, letter to, VII. 89.

Specie Payments, necessity of, XVI. 284-289, 355, 361; XVII. 113, 298;
XVIII. 302.
Means of arriving at, XVI. 289-294.
Ease of transition to, XVII, 252.
Hindrances to, XVII. 271.
First steps towards, XVII. 273-276.

Squatter Sovereignty, defined, V. 68; VII. 45.
Gen. Cass, the author of the artifice of, VI. 365.
In Nebraska Bill, a trick, VI. 366.
Results of, in New Mexico, VI. 372.

Stackpole, Joseph Lewis, obituary notice of, II. 151.

Stage-coaches, denounced by an old English writer, II. 282.

Stamp Act, John Adams on the, III. 130, 344.
Compared to Fugitive-Slave Bill, III. 339; IV. 165.
Opposition to, in America, III. 339-345; IV. 165-170; XIII. 165-168.
Chatham on, III. 345; IV. 169.

Stanly, Edward, closes colored schools in North Carolina, IX. 113.
Not upheld by Lincoln, IX. 116.
Illegal actions of, IX. 119.

Stanton, Edwin M., Secretary of War, suspension and removal of, by
President Johnson, XVI. 172, 190-195.
Application of Tenure-of-Office Act to, XVI. 177-187.
Substitution of Adj.-Gen. Thomas for, contrary to Acts of Congress,
XVI. 187-190,--and unconstitutional, XVI. 195.
Services of, XVI. 224.
His opinion of General Grant, XX. 98-100.

Stark, Benjamin, of Oregon, speeches on admission of, to Senate,
VIII. 208.

State Banks, XI. 255, 257.
Circulation of, in 1862 and 1863, XI. 256.

State Department, its confession of support of Baez in San Domingo by
United States navy, XIX. 42-45;
and of intervention in Hayti by same, XIX. 48-51.

State Rebellion, State suicide: Emancipation and Reconstruction, VIII.
163, 243.

State Rights, defined, III. 325; X. 182; XVI. 13, 60; XVII. 38,--XVIII.
2.
Jefferson on, III. 325.
Infringed by Fugitive-Slave Bill, III. 326; IV. 337, 341.
Pretended cause of the war, IX. 323; X. 191; XII. 263.
Proper, to be respected, X. 176; XVI. 236.
Pretension of, in American history, X. 176-179, 190-193; XVI. 14,
57 _et seq._
Same denied by Washington, X. 179; XII. 126; XVI. 35,--by the
Constitution, X. 181; XII. 126; XIII. 304,--by the National
Convention of 1787, X. 183 _et seq._; XII. 125; XIII. 305; XVI. 37
_et seq._,--and by Nathan Dane, X. 185; XII. 125.
Opposed to Congressional governments of rebel States, X. 194.
Establishment of national banks hindered by, XI. 246.
Pretension of, denounced, XVI. 13, 354; XVIII. 1, 31,--examples of same
in European history, XVI. 15-20.
Limitations on, XVI. 236, 354; XVII. 38, 217; XVIII. 2, 38, 46; XIX.
128.
Alexander Hamilton on, XVI. 253.

States, disarmed by the Constitution, II. 380.
National parties must interfere in elections of, III. 39-41.
Subordinate to national government, X. 182, 185-190; XIII. 304; XVI.
21.
Definition of, X. 197.
May cease to exist, X. 198.
Burke on extinction of, X. 199.
Intercourse between, by railway, XII. 105; XIV. 93.
Webster on monopolies in, XII. 127.
Early laws of, on colored suffrage, XIII. 190-194.
Pretensions of, to exclude colored citizens from the franchise, XIII.
213; XVI. 246; XVII. 40,--refutation of same, XIII. 214; XVI.
246-252; XVII. 40-49.
Validity and necessity of fundamental conditions on admission of, XVI.
230; XVII. 218; XVIII. 4,--pretensions opposed to same, XVI. 236,
246; XVIII. 2.
Equality of, according to the Constitution, XVI. 237, 243;
debates on same, in National Convention of 1787, XVI. 238-240;
Story on same, XVI. 241.
Equality of, according to Ordinance of 1787, XVI. 241, 242.
Nature of conditions to be imposed on, XVI. 244.
Powers of, limited by Declaration of Independence, XVII. 218.
See _Land States_, _Rebel States_, _Slave States_, and _State Rights_.

Statutes, revision and consolidation of the national, VIII. 1.
Declaratory, X. 331 _et seq._
Decision of Supreme Court on interpretation of, XVI. 177.

Stephens, Alexander H., on character of the Confederacy, VII. 315; X.
100 _et seq._; XIX. 225.

Stevens, Thaddeus, Representative from Pennsylvania, remarks on death of,
XVII. 2.

Stewart, William M., Senator from Nevada, answer to his denial of Mr.
Sumner’s authorship of provision for colored suffrage in rebel
States, XVII. 308-330.

Stockton, John P., Senator from New Jersey, case of, XIV. 1, 15; XVI. 96.

Stone, Charles P., Gen., surrenders fugitive slaves, VIII. 8.
Arrest of, VIII. 10.

Story, Joseph, obituary notice of, I. 133.
Lord Campbell on, I. 140, 269.
Verses by, I. 145.
Amount of sleep taken by, I. 203.
Tribute to, as jurist, in Phi Beta Kappa oration, I. 258-272.
Mackintosh and Denman on, I. 269.
His labors in Harvard Law School, III. 111.
Extract from his will, III. 111.
His benefactions to Harvard University, III. 114.
On pardoning power of the Executive, III. 227.
Judgment of, on Fugitive-Slave Act of 1793, III. 315 _et seq._;
XI. 233.
On plans for representation, IV. 55.
On treaties, V. 102; XIX. 80 _et seq._
On adoption of Missouri Compromise, VII. 30.
On policy of prohibiting States from coining money, VIII. 184.
On power of Congress to regulate commerce between States, XII. 115;
XIV. 69,--and to establish post-roads, XII. 117.
On power of Congress under the Constitution, XIII. 216.
On the Chief-Justice’s presiding at trial of the President, XVI. 90.
On impeachment, XVI. 139, 146.
On debate in the National Convention of 1787 on equality of States,
XVI. 241.
On meaning of “domicile,” XVIII. 13 _et seq._
On allotment of war-powers, XIX. 77.
On duties of innkeepers, XIX. 237;
and of common carriers, XIX. 238.
On object of Constitutional prohibition of interference with religion,
XIX. 292 _et seq._

Story, William W., XIV. 177.

Strabo, his prophecy of a new world, XV. 257.

Suez Canal, opposed by Great Britain, X. 82.

Suffrage. See _Colored Suffrage_, _Female Suffrage_, _Male Suffrage_,
and _Universal Suffrage_.

Sumner, Charles, refuses to lecture where colored persons are not
admitted with equal rights, I. 160; XI. 228.
Refuses to be a candidate for Congress, I. 330.
Not desirous of public office, I. 332; III. 152, 153, 268.
Relations of, to Boston Prison-Discipline Society, II. 108, 112.
Letter of Dr. Wayland to, II. 109.
Letter of De Tocqueville to, II. 148 (_note_).
Renounces Whig Party, II. 228.
Accepts Free-Soil nomination for Congress, II. 301-303.
His relation to the Fugitive-Slave Bill, III. 132.
Beginning of his political career, III. 147.
Political aims of, III. 147, 153, 163; VI. 38.
Letters written by, during election of United States Senator in 1851,
III. 152-154.
His sentiments on the Union, III. 153, 163.
His letter accepting office of United States Senator, III. 161.
His belief in democracy, III. 268.
His independence of party, III. 268; XX. 212.
Replies to verbal attacks in the Senate, IV. 175-216; V. 250-256.
Defends his fidelity to the Constitution, IV. 178-187, 269-271;
V. 251-254; XIX. 309-313.
His personal testimony as to slavery, V. 64.
Brooks’s assault upon, V. 257-271 (_Appendix_).
Previous personalities and aggressions upon, V. 280-301 (_Appendix_).
His injuries and continued disability, V. 328-342 (_Appendix_).
Refuses to allow Massachusetts to assume expenses of his illness,
V. 343.
Refuses to receive testimonial in approbation of Kansas speech, V. 344.
His longing for restoration to active duties, VI. 6, 11, 32, 66.
Sends contribution to Kansas, VI. 10.
Public reception of, at Boston, in 1856, VI. 22.
Accepts reëlection to Senate, VI. 46.
State of his health in 1858, VI. 65.
Recognizes duty of denouncing slavery, VI. 318.
His visits to Lafayette’s grave and home, VII. 100-108.
Attitude of, during attempts at compromise in 1861, VII. 176-184.
Interview of, with President Buchanan in 1861, VII. 180 _et seq._
Defence of his career in the Senate, IX. 200-205; XVI. 336-339.
Reëlection of, to Senate in 1863, IX. 237 (_Appendix_).
His first motion for repeal of Fugitive-Slave Bill, XI. 383.
His sentiments towards Rebels, XII. 339; XIV. 313; XV. 228; XVII. 115;
XIX. 258, 318; XX. 192-194, 213, 229-240.
President Johnson’s attack on, XIII. 266-269 (_Appendix_).
The city of Boston and, XIII. 280.
Relations of, with President Johnson, XIV. 199-205.
His bill for Reconstruction, XIV. 328-334.
Denies indifference to foreigners, XVI. 315-317.
His personal record on Reconstruction with colored suffrage, XVII. 303.
Defence of his conduct in the Committee on Foreign Relations,
respecting San Domingo treaties, XVIII. 293-295;
and of his language in speech on annexion of San Domingo, XVIII.
295-298.
His response to a toast, XVIII. 310.
Reason for his interest in San Domingo question, XIX. 20-22; XX. 180,
218 _et seq._
His interviews with Baez, XIX. 35.
Personal relations of, with President Grant, XIX. 99, 104-106; XX. 155,
200,--and with Secretary Fish, XIX. 99, 106-124.
His influence on Mr. Motley’s nomination, XIX. 117;
and on negotiations with England concerning Alabama claims, XIX.
120-122.
Declines the Haytian medal, XIX. 154.
Origin of his interest in engraving, XIX. 175.
His loyalty to the Declaration of Independence, XIX. 317.
His interest in civil-service reform, XX. 8.
His relations with the Marquis de Chambrun, XX. 9 _et seq._
Protests against competency of Senate committee to investigate sale
of arms to France, XX. 45, 56.
His devotion to the Republican Party, XX. 85.
His reasons for voting for Greeley, XX. 188-190, 199 _et seq._,
211-213, 241.
His desire for reconciliation between North and South, XX. 192-194,
197, 228 _et seq._, 253 _et seq._
His feelings towards Preston Brooks, XX. 197.
Personal misrepresentations of, XX. 218-220.
Testimony to his desire for reconciliation with the South, XX. 229-240.
Defence of his conduct as to supplementary civil-rights bill, XX. 312
_et seq._

Supreme Court of the United States, decision of, on Fugitive-Slave Act of
1793, III. 315; XI. 233.
Jackson on authority of, III. 316; IV. 179; V. 253; XVI. 207.
Its power of interpreting the Constitution, IV. 270-272.
Decision of, in Dred Scott case, VI. 291; IX. 154; XI. 63-65; XIII.
276; XVIII. 7.
Admission of a colored lawyer to the bar of, XII. 97.
Remodelling of, XIV. 30.
Cannot sit in judgment on Acts of Congress, except incidentally, XVI.
200.

Sweden and Norway, navy of, in 1845, I. 76.
Adopt separate system in prisons, II. 136.
Book on prisons by Oscar, King of, II. 136.

Switzerland, preservation of peace in, II. 379.
Intervention of France in affairs of, X. 63.

Talleyrand, on result of his life, II. 287.

Tappan, Lewis, letter to, IV. 19.

Tariff, the, speech of R. C. Winthrop on, I. 323, 338.
Not a party question, II. 236; III. 11.
Clay and Polk on, III. 11.
Additional ten per cent. duty in, opposed, VII. 235.
Means for the war, the true object of, XI. 376.

Taxation, annual, of Great Britain in 1842, I. 73.
Origin and nature of freedom of United States national lands from, III.
184-188.
Judicial decisions on right of, in States, III. 186; IV. 127.
Necessity of increased, XI. 409-411.
Should be simplified and diminished, XIV. 269; XVI. 267, 278; XVII.
238, 261-264, 279; XVIII. 41.

Taxation without Representation, testimony against, XIII.
155-158,--especially of fathers of American Republic, XIII. 158-172.
Not a claim for communities only, XIII. 294;
evidence proving same, XIII. 295-301.
Not a claim for women, XIII. 302;
Chief-Justice Parsons on above conclusion, XIII. 302.

Taxes, on cotton, IX. 84.
On slave-masters, IX. 93.
On knowledge, IX. 166; XI. 297; XII. 205-207; XIV. 264-270; XVIII. 142
_et seq._
Sydney Smith on English, XI. 299.
On education, XI. 378.
On coal, XIV. 271.
On income, XVIII. 40.

Taylor, Zachary, Gen., election of, to the Presidency opposed, II. 233.
Nomination of, II. 233-293.
Berrien on, II. 310.
Character of his administration, III. 30-32.

Telegraph, the electric, honor to its inventor, VI. 64.
Ocean, between Europe and America, XIV. 220, 301.
Power of the Senate to break into its offices, XIX. 149.

Ten-Forties, new bonds, to be issued, XVII. 247-249.

Tennessee, rights of, in the Union, X. 195; XI. 351.
Not sufficiently reconstructed, XIV. 114.

Tenure-of-Office Act, speeches on an amendment to the, XIV. 239.
Violated by President Johnson, XVI. 172.
Object of, and questions as to, XVI. 175-177.
Its application to Secretary Stanton, XVI. 177-187.
Grant’s attempt to repeal, XX. 141.

Territories, organization of new, in 1850, III. 127.
Prohibition of slavery in, all-important, IV. 8; VI. 378,--and legal,
IV. 125; VI. 233; VII. 1;
same does not infringe popular sovereignty, IV. 129.
Slave-masters cannot carry slaves into, IV. 128 _et seq._; VI. 217-235.
Polygamy in, may be suppressed by Congress, IV. 129; VII. 1.
No popular sovereignty in, can establish slavery, V. 156; VI. 230, 364;
VII. 41.
Slavery in, not authorized by the Constitution, V. 156; VI. 230, 338;
X. 214; XI. 195.
Lincoln’s defence of prohibition of slavery in, VI. 355 _et seq._;
XII. 259.
Extent and predicted population of, VII. 47 _et seq._
Slavery in, prohibited by United States Government from beginning,
VII. 58.
Necessity of above prohibition in, VII. 59, 67;
advantages of same, VII. 60.
Bill for establishing, in rebel States, VIII. 369.
Decision of Supreme Court on power of Congress over, X. 209; XI. 368.

Territory, acquisition of, XV. 39-41, 53.
Necessity of fairness in cession of, XIX. 22 _et seq._
Authorities on cession of, XIX. 39.

Texas, speech against admission of, I. 149.
Constitution of, I. 154.
Letter of Channing against annexation of, I. 291.
Boundaries of, I. 318.
Admission of, favored by R. C. Winthrop, I. 327, 337.
Annexation of, II. 308; XIX. 82.
Admission of, as a State, II. 309.
Additions to, III. 127.
Recognition of independence of, X. 94.
Benton on Calhoun’s attempt to give military support to, before
ratification of treaty, XIX. 83 _et seq._
Polk on protection of, XIX. 84.

Thayer, Eli, letter to, VII. 49.
Upholds popular sovereignty, VII. 45;
disturbing influence of same on his career, VII. 62-66.

Theatres, must be open to all, XIX. 240.

Thomas, Lorenzo, appointment of, by President Johnson, as Secretary of
War _ad interim_, XVI. 187-190, 195.

Thomas, Philip F., remarks on admission of, as Senator, XVI. 73.
Facts in case of, XVI. 77-79.

Time, the employment of, I. 184.
Authorities on arrangement of, I. 200, 201.

Tintoretto, “Miracle of the Slave” by, III. 134 (see _note_).

Tocqueville, Alexis de, letter of, on prison discipline, II. 148
(_note_).
On slave laws, VI. 168.
On employment of brute force, IX. 231.
On equality, XIII. 202.
His character and writings, XV. 418.
His predictions concerning America, XV. 419-422.
On reëlection of President of U. S., XIX. 173; XX. 222.

Toussaint l’Ouverture, XVII. 172.

Treason, definition of, in the Constitution, VIII. 128;
interpretation of clause in same, forbidding forfeiture for, IX.
27-30.
Definitions of misprision of, XVI. 80.

Treasury Department, duties of, in regard to rebel States, XI. 307-311.

Treasury Notes, a legal tender, VIII. 181.
Congress can make them such, VIII. 183-192;
evils of so doing, VIII. 193-196, 206.
See _Paper Money_.

Treaties, the abrogation of, V. 98.
Under the Constitution, V. 101; XIX. 79.
Judicial decisions on, V. 102 _et seq._
Abrogation of, between France and United States, in 1798, V. 104;
and between Great Britain and United States in 1846, V. 106.
Termination of, by notice, V. 110, 114; XII. 69, 201.
Mode of abrogating, in Europe, V. 112.
Obligation of, V. 115; XI. 150.
List of, with provisions for termination, V. 117.
Consideration of, in open Senate, XVIII. 9.
Authorities on lawfulness of disregarding, after changes in government,
XVIII. 34 _et seq._
Authorities on ratification of, in United States, XVIII. 281; XIX.
79-81.

Trent Case, the, and maritime rights, VIII. 15.
Facts in, VIII. 32-34.
Vindicated by British precedent, but contrary to American principles,
VIII. 34.
Ground of England’s complaint in, VIII. 35-37.
A question of law, VIII. 38.
Points of controversy in, VIII. 39.
Result of, VIII. 73-75.
Conduct of England in, X. 16.

Trial by Battle, I. 36; II. 345; VIII. 38; XVIII. 179.
Montesquieu on, I. 37; II. 349.
Once universal, I. 38.
Selden on, I. 38 (_note_), 42; XVIII. 179.
Condemned by Liutprand, I. 39; II. 349,--and by Pope Martin IV., I. 39.
Suppressed in France by St. Louis, I. 41; II. 347; XVIII. 242.
Restrained by Henry II. of England, I. 43; II. 347,--and by Elizabeth
and Charles I., I. 43.
Not abolished in England till 1819, I. 44.
Condemned by the Church, II. 346.
Folly of, shown by instances, II. 347 _et seq._; XVIII. 179.
Blackstone on, II. 349.
See _Duel_.

Trial by Jury, fugitive slaves entitled to, III. 328; IV. 215; X. 373.
Authorities proving requirement of, by the Constitution and common law,
for fugitive slaves, III. 330-338; X. 374-377.
Proposed by Hartley for slaves in America, XV. 350.

Tripoli, war of, with United States, II. 71-73; VIII. 296.
Treatment of slaves in, II. 97.

Troops. See _Colored Troops_.

Truce of God, I. 35.

True Grandeur of Nations, oration on, I. 1.
Inconsistent with war, 1. 122.
Moral, as for individuals, I. 124.

Trumbull, Lyman, Senator from Illinois, criticisms of, answered, X.
333-336; XVII. 213-216.
Answer to his attack on Mr. Sumner’s Reconstruction record, XVII.
231-233, 304-307.

Tucker, Josiah, Dean of Gloucester, XV. 338.
Writings of, XV. 339.
His predictions concerning America, XV. 340-345.
Ideas resembling his, advanced by others, XV. 345-347.

Tunis, expedition of Charles V. against, II. 23.
Gen. Eaton on slavery in, II. 91.
Slavery abolished in, II. 102, 209.

Turgot, announces universal law of progress, II. 262.
Author of Latin verse applied to Franklin, X. 224.
His character and sympathy for America, X. 231.
His prophecies concerning America, X. 231, 232; XV. 295-301; XVII. 119.
His friendship for Franklin, X. 239.
His career, XV. 292-294.
His definition of a republic, XV. 294.

Turkey, appeal to government of, in behalf of Crete, XV. 247.

Twichell, Ginery, XVIII. 170.

Uncle Tom’s Cabin, III. 352; VI. 185.

Union, the, Mr. Sumner’s sentiments on, III. 153-163.
Not endangered by agitation against extension of slavery, IV. 134.

Union College, Phi Beta Kappa oration at, II. 241.

United States, war of, with Great Britain in 1812, I. 17, 31 _et seq._;
VIII. 50-52.
Annual expenses of, for six years before 1840, I. 78.
Cost of war-preparations in, I. 78, 79, 110; II. 367,--and of
administering justice in, I. 84.
Standing army not needed in, I. 86;
nor navy, for war, I. 88.
Fortifications in, of no use, I. 89;
nor militia, I. 91.
Escutcheon of, I. 95.
Should disarm, I. 119, 129.
Should abandon Mexican War, I. 340.
Efforts of, to ransom American slaves in Barbary States, II. 57, 69-71,
73; VIII. 283-298.
Treaties of, with same, II. 70, 73, 74; VIII. 294 _et seq._
Wars of, with same, II. 71-76; VIII. 296.
Government of, must be emancipated from power of slavery, III. 28;
V. 42; VI. 49.
Must be neutral in European affairs, III. 179.
Public lands of, III. 184; IV. 126.
Obligations of, to Land States, III. 188, 192, 195, 198, 204.
Railroads in, III. 201.
Earliest national acts of, opposed to slavery, III. 281; VI. 226.
Its first government antislavery, III. 286, IV. 122.
Powers of national government limited, III. 296, 318, 325; IV. 214.
Military power subordinate to civil in, IV. 14; X. 170, 194; XIV. 326;
XVIII. 51.
Change of policy in, as to slavery, IV. 122-124.
No proscription for religion in, V. 77.
Foreign population of, V. 77-79.
Treaty of, with Denmark, illegally abrogated in 1855, V. 100.
Mode of abrogation of its treaties with France in 1798, V. 104;
and of treaty with Great Britain in 1846, V. 106.
Extent of, VII. 46.
Predicted increase in population and resources of, VII. 47; XVI. 280;
XVII. 239, 240.
Government of, prohibits slavery in Territories from beginning,
VII. 58.
Visit of Lafayette to, in 1824, VII. 153-155.
Support of government of, VII. 205;
emancipation of same from power of slavery, VII. 248.
British outrages on vessels of, VIII. 42-45.
Testimony to opposition of government of, to same, VIII. 45-54,--and to
its policy on neutral rights, VIII. 57-62, 64 _et seq._, 68-71;
XII. 14.
Proposes abolition of privateering, VIII. 77.
Representation of, at industrial exhibition at London, in 1862, VIII.
157.
Paper money in history of, VIII. 187-190, 193.
Its proposals of pecuniary help to Mexico, VIII. 228.
Declines to join convention of European powers concerning Mexico, VIII.
231.
Commercial relations of, with foreign countries in 1860, VIII. 315-319.
Treaties of, with Great Britain against slave-trade, VIII. 337, 341.
Efforts of, against same, VIII. 338-341.
Refuses to allow right of search against same, VIII. 341, 343.
No names of battles with fellow-citizens on regimental colors of, VIII.
361; XX. 255.
Powers of, against Rebels, IX. 18, 47, 48, 134, 143; XVII. 16.
Possesses all rights of war, IX. 34, 44.
Must not be separated, IX. 208.
Privateering early denounced by, IX. 289-291.
Unfriendly actions of England to, during Rebellion, X. 12-41, 124; XII.
267; XVII. 58-73, 84, 124.
Policy of, on fitting out war-ships as a neutral, X. 32-35.
Unfriendly actions of France to, during Rebellion, X. 41-47, 256.
Denounced by English writers for supporting slavery, X. 83.
Recognition of, by France, X. 89; XI. 97.
Recognition of Spanish America by, X. 91.
Recognizes claims for French spoliations before July 31, 1801, XI. 83,
89, 91.
History of French claims on, XI. 96-113.
Its adjustment of mutual claims with France, XI. 113-123.
Liability of, for claims on France, XI. 124;
authorities proving same, XI. 127-132;
objections to above liability refuted, XI. 132-158.
Mints of, XI. 267-269.
Pledged to maintain freedom of slaves, XI. 430; XII. 317; XIII. 56,
288.
Must keep pledged faith, XII. 317; XVI. 268, 276, 295, 362; XVII. 110,
113-116, 237.
Declarations of, testify to equality in rights, XIII. 173-176.
Early public acts of, on colored suffrage, XIII. 188-190.
Extension of its dominion and institutions, XV. 40-43, 52-54; XV.
428-433.--John Adams on same, XV. 42, 316.
Friendship of Russia for, XV. 48-50.
Name of, XV. 431; XVI. 46-50.
Its government not federal, but national, XVI. 8, 21.
Dedication of, to human rights, XVI. 28, 31, 54; XIX. 226.
Sovereignty of, belongs to the people, XVI. 28.
Early desire for nationality in, XVI. 30-35.
Tokens of nationality of, XVI. 42-52.
Powers essential to, as a nation, XVI. 55, 60; XIX. 128,--sources of
same, XVI. 56; XIX. 128.
Credit of, in Europe in 1868 and 1870, XVI. 281; XVII. 247.
Activity of, in protecting American citizens abroad, XVI. 311 _et seq._
Reparation due to, from England for aid to Rebels, XVII. 76, 125-127.
Extent of losses of, caused by England, XVII. 77-86;
English and American testimony to same, XVII. 77-83.
Rules of law applicable to damages of, XVII. 86-89.
Affairs of, at home and abroad, in 1869, XVII. 98.
Duty of, to Spain and Cuba, XVII. 120-124.
Wealth of, in 1870, XVII. 245.
Should promote education, XVIII. 49.
Expense of outlying postal routes in, XVIII. 92.
Possible loss of revenue to, from one-cent postage, XVIII. 106.
Supports Baez by ships of war at San Domingo, XVIII. 271, 303; XIX. 27;
and threatens Hayti, XVIII. 277, 303; XIX. 49;
both these actions contrary to international law, XVIII. 280; XIX.
67, 71, 75, 90; XX. 88, 147,--and acts of war, XVIII. 282; XIX. 41,
75, 84; XX. 147.
Obligations of, to France and Germany, XVIII. 319 _et seq._
Its treatment of Hayti and Dominica a violation of the Constitution,
XIX. 76, 90; XX. 88, 147.
Duty of, in regard to San Domingo, XIX. 93, 97, 131.
Sale of arms by, to France in war of 1870, XX. 5.
Testimony to its observance of neutral duties, XX. 22-24.

Unity, selfish efforts for, II. 375.
True, defined, II. 377.
Leagues to attain, II. 378.
Tendency of mankind towards, II. 381-384, 401.
For freedom, IX. 316.

Universal Suffrage, XIII. 220.

Van Buren, Martin, nominated for President in 1848, II. 295.
Election of, advocated, II. 296.

Vattel, his definition of war, I. 15.
On law of nature, II. 339.
On the Swiss republic, II. 379.
On freeing slaves in war, IX. 43.
On the object of war, IX. 73.
On refusal of recognition to nations, X. 113 _et seq._
On duty of States to satisfy private claims, XI. 127.
On reprisals on persons, XII. 79; XVI. 305.
On rights of conquerors, XIII. 326.
On destruction of property in war, XVII. 14.
On meaning of “domicile,” XVIII. 13.
On disregarding treaties, XVIII. 34.
On alienation of territory, XVIII. 222.
On equality of nations, XIX. 68.

Vermont, personal gratitude for sympathy of people of, VI. 52.

Vessels, relief of distressed, on the coast, V. 93.

Vice-President, abolition of office of, XIV. 279.
Succession of, to the Presidency, XIV. 280.
Powers of, as President of the Senate, XVI. 121;
Calhoun’s opinion on same, XVI. 122-124.

Vico, Giambattista, discovers law of progress, II. 254.

Vincent de Paul, St., enslaved in Barbary States, II. 12, 95.
Sale of, II. 87.
Good works of, II. 199.

Virginia, Declaration of Rights of, IV. 68; XIII. 192, 298.
Early social life of, VII. 11; XI. 448.
Early opposition of, to common schools, VII. 11; XIV. 337.
Paper money in, VIII. 189.
Character of first settlers of, XI. 449;
testimony to same, XI. 452-458.
Representation of, in the Senate, XII. 134.
Prohibition of colored suffrage in, XIII. 192.
Admission of, to representation in Congress, XVII. 204.
Speech of Gov. Walker of, quoted, XVII. 215.
Fraudulent election in, XVII. 231.

Virginius, case of the, XX. 284.

Voltaire, on war, II. 354.
On a slave-master, VI. 166.
His meeting with Franklin, X. 238.
Asserts equal rights of all, XI. 219 _et seq._
On republican government, XIII. 199.

Volunteers, not militia, I. 357.
Laws on term of enlistment of, in United States, quoted, I. 367;
Justice Johnson on same, I. 367.

Votes, importance of, III. 145.
Authorities on disallowance of, in legislative assemblies, XIV. 21
_et seq._;
striking out, from journal of same, XIV. 23-26.

Wade, Benjamin F., Senator from Ohio, reply to, in debate on admission of
Nebraska, XIV. 131-133, 135 _et seq._
On one term for the President, XIX. 172; XX. 159, 221.

Walker, George W., letter to, XIX. 158.

Waller, Edmund, on English captives in Algiers, II. 28.
On true glory, II. 185 _et seq._

Walpole, Horace, XV. 301.
His prophecies concerning America, XV. 303-306.

War, dishonorable now, I. 9; II. 189, 429.
Always popular, I. 10; II. 185.
Napier on, I. 12, 34.
Joseph de Maistre on, I. 12.
Sanctioned by international law as arbiter between nations, I. 13, 15,
293; II. 340; XVIII. 182.
Definitions of, I. 14; II. 194, 341; IX. 21.
At present a trial of right, I. 16.
Men resemble beasts in, I. 18.
Delight of historians in, I. 21.
Horrors of, I. 22-29; II. 350-352.
Ineffectual, I. 31.
Often decided by chance, I. 33.
Napoleon on, I. 33, 34; II. 353.
Organized murder and robbery, I. 48.
Belief in necessity of, unfounded, I. 50.
Substitutes for, I. 51; II. 414-416; XX. 80.
Can and should be abolished by nations, I. 51; II. 412; XVIII. 305.
Commonness of, no argument in its favor, I. 52.
Contrary to Christianity, but upheld by the Church, I. 54, 58.
Rev. A. H. Vinton and Earl of Abingdon on, I. 55.
Cicero on, I. 56 (see _note_).
Tacitus and Frederick of Prussia on invoking God in, I. 56.
Early testimony of the Church against, I. 59.
Not required by honor, I. 62.
Demanded by exaggerated patriotism, I. 67.
Cause of public debts, I. 72.
Longfellow on, I. 83.
Encouraged by mottoes and emblems, I. 93.
Auguries for cessation of, I. 111.
Changes in, I. 113; II. 412.
Condemned by Marshal Bugeaud, I. 116;
and by Penn, I. 117.
Inconsistent with true greatness, I. 122.
Its virtues those of peace, I. 125.
Should not be extolled in literature or art, I. 281.
Channing’s efforts against, I. 293, 295; II. 400.
Not necessary except in self-defence, I. 294, 378; X. 84.
The duel of nations, I. 294; II. 353; XVIII. 177.
Milton on, II. 185.
All war fratricidal, II. 191, 428.
Satirized by Rabelais, II. 193.
Voltaire on, II. 354.
Worse than all natural ills, II. 354.
La Bruyère on, II. 390.
Franklin on, II. 398;
his labors against, II. 398.
Jefferson on, II. 399.
Worcester’s and Ladd’s efforts against, II. 399, 400.
S. Adams’s letter against, II. 404.
Substitutes for, discussed by American and foreign governments, II.
406-409.
J. Q. Adams on abolishing, II. 412.
Powers of Congress against slavery, VII. 258; IX. 45, 128; XI. 191.
Rights of, IX. 1, 34; X. 210. XIII. 325 _et seq._,--especially against
enemy property, IX. 35-44.
Abolition of, desired by working-men of Europe, XVIII. 236.
Unnatural, XVIII. 248.
Duke of Wellington on, XIX. 41.
Allotment of powers of, according to the Constitution, XIX. 76;
Judge Story on same, XIX. 77.
See _Civil War_, _Private Wars_, _Rights of War_, _War Preparations_,
and _War System_.

War of the Rebellion, speech at beginning of the, VII. 224.
Object of, VII. 231; IX. 11, 206; XI. 439 _et seq._, 443.
Abolitionists not authors of, VII. 342-344.
Applicability of international law to, IX. 13-24; XVII. 16,--judicial
decisions and other authorities proving same, IX. 18-22;
XVII. 17, 18.
Character and importance of, IX. 234-236; X. 23, 295; XI. 445, 460-462,
479 _et seq._
Issues of the, IX. 322; XIX. 223, 262.
Contrasted with Revolutionary War, X. 24, 256, 258; XII. 238; XVII.
301.
The greatest victory of the, XIII. 219; XVII. 221; XVIII. 5; XIX. 226,
272, 308; XX. 289.
Cost of, XVII. 241.
See _Rebellion_.

War Preparations, in time of peace, I. 74.
Expenses of, in Europe and United States, I. 75-85; II. 367-369.
Useless and harmful, I. 85, 98; II. 370.
Promote war, I. 99-101; II. 369; XVIII. 226.
Protested against by St. Augustine, I. 107.
Unchristian, I. 108; II. 359.
Should be abandoned, I. 115, 119.
Condemned by Louis Philippe, I. 116; and by Penn, I. 118.
Substitute for, II. 371.
See _Disarmament_ and _War System_.

War System of the commonwealth of nations, II. 323.
Condemned, II. 361, 413.
Influences opposed to, XVIII. 232, 242.
Precedents for abolition of, XVIII. 242.
Peril from, XVIII. 246 _et seq._

Warren, George W., letter to, XX. 279.

Washington, George, small sum expended for an army during his
administration, I. 86, 109, 110.
On abolition of slavery, I. 312; II. 230; III. 17, 49 _et seq._, 286;
V. 96; VII. 129; VIII. 281.
Frees his slaves by will, I. 312; III. 50, 349; V. 96.
Advice of, to Braddock, I. 319.
On treaty with Algiers, II. 69; VIII. 294 _et seq._
Forbids sale of his slaves, II. 237.
An abolitionist, III. 46 (see annexed opinions of W., III. 48-50).
Example of, III. 164; VI. 26.
His inauguration, III. 284.
His attempt to recover a fugitive slave, III. 347; X. 362,--letter of,
in regard to same, quoted, III. 348; X. 362.
Example of, against slavery, V. 95.
Two lessons from his life, VI. 70.
Anecdote of, VI. 296.
Friendship of, for Lafayette, VII. 116, 127.
On State rights, X. 179; XII. 126; XVI. 35.
His desire for nationality, X. 180; XII. 241; XVI. 32, 35, 40.
Letter of, on treatment of prisoners of war, XII. 76 _et seq._
Compared to Lincoln, XII. 238.
Origin and character of, XII. 241.
Uses “America” as the national name, XVI. 49 _et seq._
On non-intervention, XIX. 74.
His refusal to appoint relations to office, XX. 111 _et seq._, 214.
His refusal of gifts, XX. 119-121, 215.
His inaugural address quoted, XX. 125.

Washington, D. C., no surrender of fugitive slaves in, IX. 78.
Opening of street-cars in, to colored persons, X. 323.
Colored suffrage in, XI. 284.
Necessity of equal rights in common schools of, XVIII. 21; XIX. 2.
Colored schools in, XIX. 1;
reports of trustees of same quoted, XIX. 5-10, 262.
Preservation of the park at, XX. 72.
Letter to colored citizens of, XX. 275.

Washingtons, the, memorial stones of, in England, VII. 89.

Wayland, Francis, letter of, on Boston Prison-Discipline Society,
II. 109.
On parties, II. 313.

Webster, Daniel, on duty of abolishing all evil practices, I. 309.
Appeal to, to oppose slavery, I. 314 (see annexed letter, I. 316).
Appeal to, to oppose the Mexican War, I. 382.
On parties, II. 304.
On Ordinance of 1787, III. 254; XVI. 232.
On British impressment of American seamen, VIII. 53.
On admission of new slave States, IX. 124 _et seq._
On necessity of proceeding constitutionally in organizing governments,
X. 205 _et seq._
On Fugitive-Slave Bill, X. 370.
On monopolies in States, XII. 127 _et seq._
On guaranty of republican government, XIII. 143.
On principles of republican government, XIII. 187 _et seq._
On future government of Pacific coast, XV. 52, 413.
On reprisals on persons, XVI. 306.
On conversation, XVIII. 109.

Webster, Edward, legality of his appointment as an officer in
Massachusetts regiment of volunteers for the Mexican War, I. 362-364.

Weights and Measures, metric system of, XIV. 148.
Uniformity in, early desired by United States Government, XIV. 149-151.
Necessity of uniformity in, XIV. 151-155.
See _Metric System_.

Wesley, John, on slavery, II. 63; III. 290; XII. 149.

West Indies, emancipation of slaves in, by England, I. 127; V.
28-30,--same a blessing, not a failure, VI. 343.
Brougham on apprenticeship in, XI. 317; XIII. 286.

West Point, cost of academy at, I. 87.

West Virginia, admission of, as a State, IX. 122; XI. 365.
Abolition of slavery in, IX. 122.

Whately, Richard, on weakness of slave States, IV. 210.
On concessions to intimidation, VII. 332.
On rights of slave-masters, XI. 209.

Wheaton, Henry, obituary notice of, II. 215.
English authorities on works of, II. 216, 222.
On consuls, VIII. 326.
On reprisals, XVI. 304.
On ratification of treaties, XVIII. 281.
On belligerent intervention, XIX. 74.

Whewell, William, on the object of war, I. 15.

Whig Conventions, speeches at, I. 303; II. 207.
Resolutions of, in 1846, I. 335.
On slavery and the Mexican War, I. 336.

Whig Party, antislavery duties of the, I. 303.
Defined, I. 305.
Should oppose slavery, I. 313.
And the Mexican War, I. 339.
Not party of humanity, II. 228.
Renounced by Mr. Sumner, II. 228.
Influenced by Slave Power, II. 293; VI. 328.
Rejects Wilmot Proviso in 1848, II. 293, 310.
Late origin of, II. 306.
Not opposed to extension of slavery, II. 307.
Same proved by its history, II. 308-311.
Compromise its essential element, IV. 266.
Dead in 1855, V. 73.
Favored one term for the President, XIX. 171 _et seq._

Whipple, William, letter of, to Washington, on recovery of his fugitive
slave, III. 348.

White, no more states with that word in their Constitutions, XIII. 346;
XIV. 128;
same should be struck out of naturalization laws, XV. 238; XVIII.
145, 152, 160,--and of all other legislation, XX. 310.

White, Andrew D., Mr. Sumner’s letter to, concerning Frederick Douglass
and President Grant, XX. 205-208.

Wide-Awakes, the, VII. 72.
Speeches to, after election of 1860, VII. 76, 82, 86.
Letter to, after same, VII. 80.

Wilkes, Charles, Capt., seizure of Rebel commissioners by, VIII. 33,
71-73; X. 15.
See _Trent Case_.

Willey, Waitman T., Senator from West Virginia, threatens reënslavement
of negroes, X. 217 _et seq._

William I., King of Prussia, XVIII. 229 _et seq._

Williams, George H., Senator from Oregon, reply to his objections to
allowing Chinese to be naturalized, XVIII. 154-159.

Williamson, Passmore, letter to, V. 52.
Case of, V. 71.

Wilmot Proviso, rejected by Whig and Democratic parties in 1848, II. 293,
310.
Origin of, II. 309.
Clayton and Choate on, II. 311.
Advocated by Free-Soil Party, III. 26.
Character of, X. 334.

Wilson, Henry, Senator from Massachusetts, VI. 34; XVIII. 171.

Winthrop, John, on civil liberty, III. 131.

Winthrop, Robert C., letter to, I. 317.
Vote of, on Mexican War Bill, I. 317, 323;
reasons in defence of same considered, I. 323-326.
His speech on the tariff, I. 323, 338.
Admission of Texas favored by, I. 327, 337.
Appeal to, to oppose Mexican War, I. 327.
His actions in regard to slavery, I. 337;
and the Mexican War, I. 338.

Witnesses, powers of the Senate over recusant, VI. 82 _et seq._, 89 _et
seq._; XIX. 132.
Answers of, criminating themselves, VIII. 152.
Exclusion of, on account of color, XI. 2, 389,--consequences of same,
XI. 24-26, 393.
Historical examples of exclusion of, XI. 27-34.
Opening of United States courts to colored, XI. 389.
Authorities on exclusion of colored, XI. 390-393.

Women’s National League, petition of, for universal emancipation, X. 300.

Worcester, Noah, labors of, against war, II. 399.

Worcester, Massachusetts, a Republican stronghold, VI. 353.

Working-men of Europe, desire abolition of war, XVIII. 236.
Addresses of, quoted, XVIII. 237-241.

Yellow Fever at Memphis and Shreveport, aid to sufferers by, XX. 281.

List of other volumes in this series

Volume LibraryBlog
ebook number
I. 45230
II. 45473
III. 45637
IV. 45954
V. 48035
VI. 48045
VII. 48077
VIII. 48170
IX. 48266
X. 48285
XI. 48376
XII. 49789
XIII. 50159
XIV. 50160
XV. 50161
XVI. 50167
XVII. 50370
XVIII. 48314
XIX. 50386

*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Charles Sumner; his complete works, volume 20 (of 20)" ***

Home