"I suppose the idea of expelling you from the Senate, which was reported in the papers some weeks ago, could never have been seriously entertained. But the mere suggestion of such an outrage roused many men who had never been your political friends; for everybody felt that to attempt such an act would be an indignity to the State not to be tolerated.
"I find that I have left to the end of my letter, what I meant to have said in the beginning, that all your friends are delighted with your course in Congress under the very trying circumstances of the present session. We all agree that you have fought a good fight."
William I. Bowditch, Esq., of Boston, communicated the following incident:—
"One gentleman whom I saw this forenoon said that he involuntarily gave three cheers, when he had finished reading your speech; and an 'old Hunker' said to me smilingly, 'I really don't know but that I shall myself come out at last a Sumner man.'"
Dr. James W. Stone, an indefatigable member of the Free-Soil party, wrote:—
"But I should not only fail to express my own feelings, but also the universal satisfaction here evinced, did I long delay to tell you, even if I have time to do nothing more, how great the enthusiasm is in your behalf, for your noble reply to the unworthy assaults from Pettit, whose name is more significant of his mental than of his physical calibre, from Butler the faithless, and from Clay the slave-hunter, et id omne genus. I doubt whether even you can repress the enthusiasm which so earnestly demands a public reception for you on your return home."
Hon. Benjamin F. Butler, afterwards General, and Representative in Congress, wrote:—
"My interest in the subject of the speeches procured me the reports while they were being delivered. At that time I was at Concord, in court, seeing people of all parties; and I can assure you, from observation, that your course in the Senate is sanctioned by the approving sentiment of Massachusetts."
Robert Carter, Esq., the journalist and writer, wrote from Cambridge:—
"A month ago I thought your popularity had reached a wonderfully high pitch, that you had at a leap overcome prejudices and misconceptions that seemed likely to be surmounted only by the gradual toil of years. But the last week has wrought even greater wonders. Multitudes, formerly your enemies and revilers, are not merely willing to tolerate you, not merely willing to be satisfied with you, but have become actually proud of you, as their representative, and the champion of Massachusetts and the North. I hear on all sides nothing but commendations and exultations."
John C. Dodge, Esq., of Boston, wrote:—
Hon. Albert G. Browne, of Salem, wrote:—
"Let me say seriously, frankly, your reputation as a fearless, brave, and true man is firmly established,—confidence also in your discretion and good judgment, as shown in this last debate and in the management of this whole affair. There is a settled conviction that you know how to withstand the entreaties or coolness of friends, when your thoughts are not their thoughts,—that you have shown great moral and physical courage, united with admirable ability, in meeting and discomfiting the foes of Freedom, when, in your opinion, the right time had come."
Professor Edward T. Channing, of Harvard University, whose memory is dear to a large circle of pupils, wrote to a friend:—
"Sumner has done nobly. He is erect and a man of authority among the slave holders, dealers, and hunters. He has made an historical era for the North; for at least one among us has dared to confront the insolent. He makes cowards of them, or rather shows what cowards they are at the South. So will it ever be, when the Truth is bold; though it is rare for a young or old hero in politics to produce effect so rapidly. Still, and notwithstanding, and nevertheless, our Whigs would send Apollyon to the Senate as soon as Sumner, if his term should expire when they are uppermost."
T.C. Connolly, Esq., under date of August 21, reported from Washington the opinion of Mr. Gales, the very able editor of the National Intelligencer.
"I rejoice in the assurance universally felt here, that your position in the Senate will be far more pleasant in the future than it has been in the past. I enjoyed the pleasure of a conversation with Mr. Gales on this subject a few days since. He introduced your name, and remarked that the absence of sympathy in your views could not influence his fair judgment of your worth. He was an attentive reader of the debates of the Senate, and he had seen that every step you had taken was a step upward, and that they who had affected to contemn were at length driven into a tacit acknowledgment of their very great error. He spoke in particular of the reproofs you had found it necessary to administer to Senators around you, and said, that, while they were exceedingly severe and effective, they were equally just, and unaccompanied by a single word that could be regarded as incompatible with the place and presence in which you stood."
Men particularly interested in the Peace Cause united in the prevailing sentiment.
Of these, Hon. Amasa Walker, afterwards a Representative in Congress from Massachusetts, wrote:—
"Your reply to the slaveholders is capital, and receives universal admiration in this quarter. It was just such a flagellation as the slavocrats deserved, and such a one as they never received before in the Senate. I think, from what I can observe, that your course is universally popular, always excepting the mercenary minions of the Government."
J.P. Blanchard, Esq., devoted to Peace, wrote:—
"I take this occasion to express my warm admiration of the spirit and power you have exhibited in your late contest with Messrs. Butler, Pettit, et id genus omne. I am rejoiced and grateful that your 'backbone' has proved strong enough to stand such a test without bending: that I have not given you this acknowledgment earlier is because, being very busy, I did not take time to write a letter for that purpose only, as I knew you were so well acquainted with my sympathies that the expression of them was unnecessary. I am glad to understand that you have received commendations on this score from sources where a short time ago you would not have expected them."
Elihu Burritt, the Missionary of Peace, wrote:—
"And now I want to thank you with my whole heart for your grand and brave rejoinder to Butler and Mason. It was the best, bravest thing done in the Senate this many a year. I think more hearts in the Free States will glory in your courageous and overwhelming reply to these plantation Senators than in any public effort of your life. You must have made it, too, on short notice. I never read anything with more satisfaction."
Other letters attest a change in sentiment among those who had been lukewarm on Slavery, and perhaps adverse to Mr. Sumner.
Hon. Daniel Shattuck, of Concord, wrote:—
"Being one of the old-time Whigs, I was not pleased with your election to the high seat which you hold: for that opinion you will forgive me, I am sure, when I say that I go with you now heart and soul, and approve all you have said in defence of your native State, whose sons I know approve your course and wish you God-speed.
George M. Browne, Esq., of Boston, wrote:—
"Differing with you as I do in political sentiments, and having no other connection with public affairs than what pertains to every citizen, I desire nevertheless to express to you, what I believe to be the general feeling among all classes of reflecting minds here, an admiration for the dignified and gentlemanly bearing with which you have gone through the contest and rebuked the ruffian onslaught,—and to say, moreover, that we should, I have no doubt, all unite, from all sides, as one man, in sending you back to the Senate, should the maniac threats of expulsion by any possibility be carried into effect."
The following poem, suggested by this debate, belongs to this history.
TO C.S.
J.G. W.
11th month, 25th, 1854.
Letter to the Mayor of Boston, for the Celebration July 4, 1854.
Senate Chamber, 1st July, 1854.
Dear Sir,—I have been honored by the invitation of the municipal authorities of Boston to unite with them in commemorating the approaching anniversary of our National Independence.
Please tender to them my gratitude, that they have thus remembered me, an absent citizen, who tries to serve truth and justice in the sphere where he has been placed. Pleasure would take me home among congenial souls, but duty keeps me here.
The approaching anniversary of Independence in Boston should be something more than a show and expense. It ought to be the occasion of a practical vow to those primal principles of Freedom which have been assailed. Our municipal history should be carefully read, and, unless we are prepared to disown our fathers, the conduct of Boston at memorable times should be set forward anew, as an example which her children must never forget. I do not refer to the violent act by which her harbor was converted into a "teapot"; but I would especially dwell on the peaceful opposition, which, according to her own records, now preserved at the City Hall, she organized against a tyrannical and unconstitutional Act of Parliament,—"bearing testimony against outrageous tumults and illegal proceedings," but never failing to "take legal and warrantable measures to prevent that misfortune, of all others the most to be dreaded, the execution of the Stamp Act." The City Clerk will find these words in his books, under date of 24th March, 1766, whence I have with my own hand copied them. With this great precedent of Freedom in my memory, I ask the municipal authorities—should I be remembered at their hospitable board—to propose in my name the following sentiment.
The City of Boston.—While still in colonial dependence, and with no aim at revolution, her municipal fathers steadfastly opposed the execution, within her borders, of an unconstitutional and tyrannical Act of Parliament, until, without violence or collision, it was at first practically annulled, and at last repealed. Truly honoring the Fathers, let Boston not depart from their example.
I remain, dear Sir, your faithful servant,
Charles Sumner.
To the Mayor of Boston.
Minority Report to the Senate of the United States, on the Bill granting to the Widow of James Batchelder a Provision for her future Support, July 13, 1854.
An attempt was made to obtain a pension for the widow of James Batchelder, killed in Boston, while guarding Anthony Burns, the fugitive slave, on the evening of May 26, 1854. A bill was reported from the Committee on Pensions. Mr. Sumner and Mr. Seward, constituting a minority of the Committee, made the following adverse report, which was drawn up by the former.
VIEWS OF MR. SUMNER AND MR. SEWARD.
The undersigned, a minority of the Committee on Pensions, cannot concur with the majority of the Committee in reporting a bill for the relief of the widow of the late James Batchelder. They also dissent from the report accompanying the bill, which, however, is understood not to proceed from a majority of the Committee.
In granting pensions, or bounties of a kindred nature, it has been the habit of the Committee to require evidence of all essential facts and circumstances,—not, indeed, according to the rigorous forms of a court of law, but with substantial fulness and authenticity. Applications for pensions are constantly rejected for defect of testimony. But this reasonable practice, which is a necessary safeguard against abuse, has been disregarded in the present case. No evidence of any kind—not a shred or particle—was produced. The majority of the Committee undertook to act at once, on loose and general report, gathered from the public press at a moment of excitement. In this report they have obviously proceeded with more haste than discretion. Such a course cannot be in conformity with approved precedents. In itself it will be a bad precedent for the future.
But this proceeding seems more obnoxious to comment, when it is known that it appears, from the very sources on which the Committee relied, that the facts in question are all at this moment the subject of judicial inquiry, still pending, in the courts at Boston. Several citizens have been indicted for participation in the transaction to which reference is made, and in which Batchelder is said to have been killed. Their trials have not yet taken place, but are near at hand. Under these peculiar circumstances, the indiscreet haste of the Committee, thus acting in advance of authentic evidence, and lite pendente, is enhanced by possible detriment to the grave interests of justice, which all will admit should not be exposed to partisan influence from abroad. The report accompanying the bill, without any aid from human testimony, undertakes to pronounce dogmatically on facts which will be in issue on these trials. Anticipating the court, and literally without a hearing, it gives judgment on absent persons, as well as on distant events.
On grounds irrespective of the merits of the case, the undersigned object to any action upon it on the present evidence, and in the existing state of things. They object for two reasons: first, that such action would become a bad precedent, opening the way to a disregard of evidence in the distribution of pensions and bounties; and, secondly, that it would be an interference—offensive, though indirect—with the administration of justice, in matters still pending, and involving the fortunes of several citizens. These reasons are ample.
But on other grounds, of a different character, and vital to the merits of the case, the undersigned must dissent from the majority of the Committee.
Regarding the Act of Congress usually known as the Fugitive Slave Act as unconstitutional, while it is justly condemned by the moral sense of the communities where it is sought to be enforced, the undersigned are not disposed to recognize any services rendered in its enforcement as meritorious in character. Especially are they unwilling to depart beyond the clear line of precedent, in voting bounties on account of such services. This of itself is sufficient reason for opposition to the proposed bill.
But admitting for the moment the asserted constitutionality of the Fugitive Slave Act, and its conformity with just principles of duty, and admitting further, that efforts for its enforcement are to be placed in the same scale with efforts to enforce other Acts of Congress, of acknowledged constitutionality, and clear conformity with just principles of duty, then the undersigned beg leave to submit, that, according to the practice of our country, such efforts have not been considered as entitled to the ordinary reward of pensions or kindred bounties.
The pensions and kindred bounties of our country have been founded exclusively on military and naval services. In England, civil services, whether on the bench, in diplomacy, or in the departments of State, are subjects of pension; but it is otherwise here. With us there are no general laws to this end; nor are there special laws of such clear meaning and character as to become precedents, sanctioning pensions or bounties for civil service. A report of this Committee, made by its Chairman at this very session of Congress, states the rule and practice of Congress. Here is the whole report.
"IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.
"April 11, 1854.—Ordered to be printed.
"Mr. Jones, of Iowa, made the following report.
"The Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the petition of Rebecca Bright, beg leave to report:—
"That the petitioner is the widow of Jacob Bright, an armorer, who was killed at the navy-yard in this city by the bursting of a shell. He being an employee of the Government, and in no sense to be regarded as in its 'military or naval service,' the Committee can find no reason, founded in law or justice, for pensioning his widow. Her case is precisely that of the widow of a laborer or mechanic employed by the day or month upon any public work. They therefore recommend that the prayer of the petitioner be rejected."[131]
And yet, in the very teeth of this recommendation, made by themselves at this very session, the Committee now propose to bestow a bounty upon such services. If the Committee were right in their former report, they cannot be right now.
The report accompanying the bill shows that three of the Committee have felt that their recommendation needed the support of precedents, and they have ransacked the records for them. Two only are produced.
The first is an Act of Congress, bearing date June 7, 1794, which provides "that the sum of two thousand dollars be allowed to the widow of Robert Forsyth, late marshal of the district of Georgia, for the use of herself and the children of the said Robert Forsyth." On search in the office of the Secretary of the Senate, where this bill originated, and also at the Treasury, where the money was paid, no papers have been found showing the occasion of this grant; nor has anybody undertaken to state any. This precedent, then, can be of little value in establishing an important rule in the dispensation of national bounties.
The only other precedent adduced by the Committee is an Act bearing date May 8, 1820, providing "that the Postmaster-General be, and he hereby is, authorized and directed to pay to the widow of John Heaps, late of the city of Baltimore,—who, while employed as a carrier of the mail of the United States, and having the said mail in his custody, was beset by ruffians and murdered,—out of the money belonging to the United States, arising from the postage of letters and packets, five hundred dollars in ten equal semiannual payments." On this precedent Congress will surely hesitate to establish a rule which will open a new drain upon the country.
The general laws do not award pensions or bounties for services in enforcing the revenue laws of the country; and it is not known that any special acts have ever been passed rewarding such services, though they have often been rendered at imminent danger to life, as well from shipwreck as from the violence of smugglers. The proposed bill will be an apt precedent for bounty in this large class of cases; and it may properly be opposed by all who are not ready for a new batch of claimants.
The undersigned venture to make a single comment further on the report accompanying the bill. This report, not content with assigning reasons for its proposed bounty, proceeds to take cognizance of the conduct of the people of Massachusetts, the citizens, the soldiers, the marshal and his deputies, the mayor and police of Boston, in the recent transaction, and assumes to hold the scales of judgment. In this respect it evinces an indiscreet haste, similar to that already displayed in acting on the present proposition, without authentic evidence, and during the pendency of judicial investigations. It appears from the public journals, out of which all our information on this matter is derived, that the conduct of several public functionaries, on this occasion, in Massachusetts, has been seriously drawn in question. The marshal of the district is openly charged with making the arrest of the alleged fugitive under the fraudulent pretence that he was a criminal,—a scandalous device, which no honest man can regard without reprobation. The mayor of Boston is also openly charged with violation of the primal principles of free institutions and of the law of the land, in surrendering the city for the time being into the possession of a military force, and thus establishing there that supremacy of arms under which all law is silent. But on these things the undersigned express no opinion. They desire only to withhold all assent from the blindfold ratification which the report accompanying the bill volunteers, without reason or occasion, to the conduct of public functionaries, as well as of others, who, according to some evidence, may have acted very badly.
Charles Sumner.
William H. Seward.
Letter to the Cape Cod Association of Massachusetts, July 30, 1854.
Here, again, is an effort against the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act.
Senate Chamber, July 30, 1854.
Dear Sir,—I have been honored by the Cape Cod Association with an invitation to unite with them in their approaching festival at Yarmouth.
Amidst these unprecedented heats it is pleasant merely to think of the seaside; much pleasanter would it be to taste for a day its salt, refreshing air, especially with cherished friends, and stirred by historical memories, in these times bracing to the soul. But my duties will keep me here.
In that part of Massachusetts to which you invite me was born James Otis, one of our immortal names. He early saw the beauty of Liberty, and in those struggles which preceded the Revolution gave his eloquent tongue to her support. To the tyrannical Writs of Assistance, offspring of sovereign power, and at that day regarded as constitutional, he offered inflexible resistance, saying, "I will to my dying day oppose, with all the powers and faculties God has given me, all such instruments of slavery on the one hand and villany on the other. I cheerfully submit myself to every odious name for conscience' sake. Let the consequences be what they will, I am determined to proceed." And then again he declared of this outrageous process, "It is a power that places the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer." With this precision he struck at an engine of tyranny, and with fervid eloquence exposed it to mankind. Such a character should not be forgotten at your commemoration. Were I there, I might ask leave to propose the following sentiment.
The memory of James Otis, of Barnstable, the early orator of American Liberty.—Massachusetts cherishes the fame of her patriot child. Let her also imitate his virtues.
I remain, dear Sir, very faithfully yours,
Charles Sumner.
To the Chairman of the Committee.
Debate in the Senate, July 31, 1854.
All efforts of the friends of Freedom in Congress encountered opposition at every stage. Attempts by John Quincy Adams to present petitions were thwarted in every way that vindictive rage could prompt. Propositions for the repeal of obnoxious laws sustaining Slavery were stifled. To accomplish this result, parliamentary courtesy and parliamentary law were both set at defiance. On a former occasion,[132] when Mr. Sumner brought forward his motion for the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act, he was refused a hearing, and obtained it only by taking advantage of the Civil and Diplomatic Appropriation Bill, and moving an amendment to it, which no parliamentary subtlety or audacity could declare to be out of order. On the presentation of petitions against the Fugitive Slave Act, from time to time, he was met by similar checks. Meanwhile anything for Slavery was always in order. An experience of a single day will show something of this.
On the 31st of July, 1854, Mr. Seward, of New York, under instructions from the Committee on Pensions, reported a bill, which had already passed the House of Representatives, for the relief of Betsey Nash, a poor and aged woman, whose husband had died of wounds received in the war of 1812, and asked for its immediate consideration. This simple measure, demanded by obvious justice, was at once embarrassed by an incongruous proposition for the support of Slavery. Mr. Adams, of Mississippi, moved, as an amendment, another bill, for the relief of Mrs. Batchelder, widow of a person killed in Boston, while aiding as a volunteer in the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act. In the face of various objections this amendment was adopted. Mr. Sumner at once followed by a proposition in the following words:—
"Provided, That the Act of Congress, approved September 18, 1850, for the surrender of fugitives from service or labor, be, and the same is hereby, repealed."
This was ruled out of order, as "not germane to the bill under consideration"; and the two bills, hitched together,—one for a military pension, and the other for contribution to the widow of a Slave-Hunter,—were put on their passage. Mr. Sumner then sprang for the floor, when a struggle ensued, which is minutely reported in the Congressional Globe. The careful reader will observe, that in order to cut off an effort to repeal the Fugitive Slave Act, at least two unquestionable rules of parliamentary law were overturned.
Mr. Sumner. In pursuance of notice, I now ask leave to introduce a bill.
Mr. Stuart (of Michigan). I object to it, and move to take up the River and Harbor Bill.
The Presiding Officer (Mr. Cooper, of Pennsylvania). The other bill is not disposed of. The third reading of a Bill for the relief of Betsey Nash.
The bill was then read a third time and passed.
Mr. Sumner. In pursuance of notice, I ask leave to introduce a bill, which I now send to the table.
Mr. Stuart. Is that in order?
Mr. Sumner. Why not?
Mr. Benjamin (of Louisiana). There is a pending motion of the Senator from Michigan to take up the River and Harbor Bill.
The Presiding Officer. That motion was not entertained, because the Senator from Massachusetts had and has the floor.
Mr. Stuart. I make the motion now.
The Presiding Officer. The Chair thinks it is in order to give the notice.
Mr. Sumner. Notice has been given, and I now, in pursuance of notice, introduce the bill. The question is on its first reading.
The Presiding Officer. The first reading of a bill.
Mr. Norris (of New Hampshire). I rise to a question of order.
Mr. Sumner. I believe I have the floor.
Mr. Norris. But I rise to a question of order. I submit that that is not the question. The Senator from Massachusetts has given notice that he would ask leave to introduce a bill. He now asks that leave. If there be objection, the question must be decided by the Senate whether he shall have leave or not. Objection is made, and the bill cannot be read.
Mr. Sumner. Very well; the first question, then, is on granting leave, and the title of the bill will be read.
The Presiding Officer (to the Secretary). Read the title.
The Secretary read it as follows: "A Bill to repeal the Act of Congress approved September 18, 1850, for the surrender of fugitives from service or labor."
The Presiding Officer. The question is on granting leave to introduce the bill.
Mr. Sumner. And I have the floor.
The Presiding Officer. The Senator from Massachusetts is entitled to the floor.
Mr. Sumner. I shall not occupy much time, nor shall I debate the bill. Some time ago, Mr. President, after the presentation of the Memorial from Boston, signed by twenty-nine hundred citizens without distinction of party, I gave notice that I should, at a day thereafter, ask leave to introduce a bill for the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act. Desirous, however, not to proceed prematurely, I awaited the action of the Committee on the Judiciary, to which the Memorial, and others of a similar character, were referred. At length an adverse report was made, and accepted by the Senate. From the time of that report down to this moment, I have sought an opportunity to introduce this bill. Now, at last, I have it. At a former session, Sir, in introducing a similar proposition, I considered it at length, in an argument which I fearlessly assert——
Mr. Gwin (of California). I rise to a point of order. Has the Senator a right to debate the question, or say anything on it, until leave be granted?
The Presiding Officer. My impression is that the question is not debatable.[133]
Mr. Sumner. I propose simply to explain my bill,—to make a statement, not an argument.
Mr. Gwin. I make the point of order.
The Presiding Officer. I am not aware precisely what the rule of order on the subject is; but I have the impression that the Senator cannot debate——
Mr. Sumner. The distinction is this——
Mr. Gwin. I insist upon the application of the decision of the Chair.
Mr. Mason (of Virginia). Mr. President, there is one rule of order that is undoubted: that, when the Chair is stating a question of order, he must not be interrupted by a Senator. There is no question about that rule of order.
The Presiding Officer. The Senator did not interrupt the Chair.
Mr. Sumner. The Chair does me justice in response to the injustice of the Senator from Virginia.
The Presiding Officer. Order! order!
Mr. Mason. The Senator is doing that very thing at this moment. I am endeavoring to sustain the authority of the Chair, which certainly has been violated.
The Presiding Officer. It is the opinion of the Chair that the debate is out of order. I am not precisely informed of what the rule is; but such is my clear impression.
Mr. Walker (of Wisconsin). If the Senator from Massachusetts will allow me, I will say a word here.
Mr. Sumner. Certainly.
Mr. Walker. It is usual, upon notice being given of intention, to ask leave to introduce a bill. The bill is sent to the Chair, and it is taken as a matter of course that the Senator asking it has leave. But in this instance, differing from the usual practice, objection has been made to leave being granted. The necessity is imposed, then, of taking the sense of the Senate on granting leave to the Senator to introduce his bill. That, then, becomes the question. The question for the Chair to put is, Shall the Senator have leave?
The Presiding Officer. That was the question proposed.
Mr. Walker. Now, Sir, it does seem to me that it is proper, and that it is in order, for the Senator to address himself to the Senate, with the view of showing the propriety of granting the leave asked for. He has a right to show that there would be propriety on the part of the Senate in granting the leave. I think, therefore, as this may become a precedent in future in regard to other matters, that it should be settled with some degree of deliberation.
Mr. Gwin. Let the Chair decide the question.
The Presiding Officer. The Chair has decided that debate was not in order, in his opinion.
Mr. Sumner. From that decision of the Chair I most respectfully take an appeal.
The Presiding Officer. From that ruling of the Chair an appeal is taken by the Senator from Massachusetts. The question is on the appeal.
Mr. Benjamin. In order to put a stop to the whole debate, I move to lay the appeal on the table. That is a motion which is not debatable.
Mr. Sumner. Is that motion in order?
The Presiding Officer. Certainly it is in order.[134]
Mr. Weller (of California). I desire to make one remark in regard to the rule.
The Presiding Officer. It is not in order now. The question must be taken without debate.
Mr. Sumner. Allow me to state the case as it seems to me. I was on the floor, and yielded it to the Senator from Wisconsin strictly for the purpose of an explanation. When he finished, I was in possession of the floor; and then it was that the Senator from Louisiana, on my right——
The Presiding Officer. Will the Senator from Massachusetts give leave to the Chair to explain?
Mr. Sumner. Certainly.
The Presiding Officer. A point of order was made by the Senator from California [Mr. Gwin], that debate was not in order upon the question of granting leave; and the Chair so decided. The Senator from Massachusetts then lost the floor, as I apprehend, and he certainly did by following it up by an appeal. After that he could go no further. He lost the floor then again for a second time, and then it was that the Senator from Louisiana intervened with another motion, which is certainly in order, to lay the appeal on the table. That is not debatable. This, it seems to me, is the state of the case.
Mr. Chase (of Ohio). Will the Chair allow me to make a single statement?
The Presiding Officer. Certainly.
Mr. Chase. The Senator from Massachusetts rose and held the floor during the suggestion made to the Chair by the Senator from Wisconsin. The Chair then, after the Senator from Wisconsin had finished his suggestion, declared his opinion to be, notwithstanding the suggestion, that debate was not in order. The Senator from Massachusetts then took an appeal, and retained the floor for the purpose of addressing the Senate on that appeal. While he occupied the floor, the Senator from Louisiana rose and moved to lay the appeal upon the table. That will be borne out by the gentlemen present.
The Presiding Officer. That is so; but the Chair does not understand that debate was in order on the appeal. The appeal was to be decided without debate, and therefore the Senator from Massachusetts necessarily lost the floor after he took the appeal.
Mr. Bell (of Tennessee). I would inquire whether there is not a bill already pending for the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law?
The Presiding Officer. I have not inquired of the Secretary, but it is my belief there is a similar bill pending; but it was not on that ground the Chair made this ruling.
Mr. Bell. I would inquire whether there is not such a bill pending? Did not the honorable Senator from Ohio some time ago bring in such a bill?
Mr. Weller. I think he did.
Mr. Chase. No, Sir.
Mr. Bell. Then I am mistaken.
Mr. Chase. My bill is not on that subject.
The Presiding Officer. The question is on the motion of the Senator from Louisiana, to lay on the table the appeal taken by the Senator from Massachusetts from the decision of the Chair.
Mr. Chase. I ask if the motion of the Senator from Louisiana is in order, when the Senator from Massachusetts retained the floor for the purpose of debating the appeal?
Mr. Benjamin. The Senator is not in order in renewing that question, which has already been decided by the Chair.
The Presiding Officer. If the Chair acted under an erroneous impression in supposing that debate on the appeal was not in order, when it actually is, it was the fault of the Chair, and it would not have been in order for the Senator from Louisiana to make the motion which he did make, while the Senator from Massachusetts was on the floor. But the Chair recognized the Senator from Louisiana, supposing that the Senator from Massachusetts had yielded the floor. The Senator had taken an appeal; he followed it up by no address to the Chair, indicating an intention that he intended to debate the appeal, or the Chair certainly should so far have recognized him. But the Chair would reconsider his ruling in that respect, with the consent of the Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. Bright (of Indiana). The Chair will permit me to suggest that I think the motion proper to be entertained now is the one proposed by the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Norris]. The Senator from Massachusetts presented his bill; the Senator from New Hampshire raised the question as to whether the Senate would grant leave to introduce it; and I think the proper question to be put now is, Will the Senate grant leave to introduce a bill repealing the Fugitive Slave Law? The effect of the motion of the Senator from Louisiana would be to lay the subject on the table, from which it might be taken at any time for action. For one, I desire to give a decisive vote now, declaring that I am unwilling to legislate upon the subject, that I am satisfied with the law as it reads, and that I will not aid the Senator from Massachusetts, or any Senator, in——
The Presiding Officer. The Senator from Indiana is certainly not in order.
Mr. Bright. I certainly am in order in calling the attention of the Chair to the fact that the Senator from New Hampshire——
The Presiding Officer. The Senator from Indiana is not in order.
Mr. Bright. Then I will sit down and ask the Chair to state wherein I am out of order.
The Presiding Officer. In discussing a question which is not before the Senate.
Mr. Bright. I claim that the motion is before the Senate. The Senator from New Hampshire raised the question immediately, that——
The Presiding Officer. The Chair decides otherwise.
Mr. Bright. Then I appeal from the decision of the Chair, and I state this as my point of order: that, before the bill was presented in legal parlance, the Senator from New Hampshire raised the question as to whether the Senate would grant leave, and that is the point now before the Senate.
The Presiding Officer. The Chair will state the question which he supposes to be pending. The Senator from California made a point of order, that debate on the bill proposed to be introduced by the Senator from Massachusetts was not in order. The Chair so ruled. From that ruling the Senator from Massachusetts took an appeal. The Chair supposed that the Senator from Massachusetts had yielded the floor, and he gave the floor to the Senator from Louisiana, who moved to lay that appeal on the table. That is the question which is now pending. The Chair before suggested, that, if the Senator from Massachusetts had not yielded the floor, he had made a mistake in giving the floor to the Senator from Louisiana, but he did not suppose that the Senator from Massachusetts, after taking the appeal, without some indication of his intention to debate it, could continue to hold the floor, and he therefore recognized the Senator from Louisiana. The Chair is sorry, if he did the Senator from Massachusetts injustice in that respect; but he did not hear him, and recognized the Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. Bright. I would respectfully ask the Chair what has become of the motion submitted by the Senator from New Hampshire?
The Presiding Officer. The Chair did not understand him to submit a motion, but the Senator from California took his point of order.
Mr. Bright. I wish to inquire of the Senator from New Hampshire whether he has withdrawn his motion?
The Presiding Officer. It was not entertained. It is not in his power to say whether it was withdrawn or not, for it was not entertained.
Mr. Norris. I think I can inform my friend from Indiana how the matter stands. The Senator from Massachusetts proposed to introduce a bill on notice given. I raised the question, that it could not be introduced without leave of the Senate, if there was objection.
Mr. Sumner. Do I understand the Senator to say without notice given? I asked leave to introduce the bill in pursuance of notice.
Mr. Norris. The Senator from Massachusetts, I have already stated, offered his bill agreeably to previous notice.
Mr. Sumner. Precisely.
Mr. Norris. The question was then raised, whether it could be received, if there was objection? The question arose, whether leave should be granted to the Senator from Massachusetts to introduce the bill?
Mr. Sumner. That is the first question.
Mr. Norris. The Senator from Massachusetts, upon the question of granting leave, undertook to address the Senate. He was then called to order by my friend from California for discussing that question. The Chair sustained the objection of the Senator from California. From the decision of the Chair the Senator from Massachusetts took an appeal; and that is where the question now stands, unless the Senator from Louisiana had a right to make the motion which he did make, which was to lay the appeal on the table.
The Presiding Officer. The question is, unless the Senator from Louisiana will disembarrass the Chair by withdrawing it, on the motion of the Senator from Louisiana to lay the appeal on the table.
Mr. Sumner. On that motion I ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. Foot (of Vermont). On what motion have the yeas and nays been ordered?
The Presiding Officer. On the motion of the Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. Walker. I wish to know, before voting, what will be the effect of a vote given in the affirmative on this motion? Will it carry the bill and the whole subject on the table?
Mr. Foot. An affirmative vote carries the whole measure on the table.
The Presiding Officer. Yes, Sir; if the motion to lay on the table be agreed to, it carries the bill with it.
Several Senators. No, no!
Mr. Benjamin. The question is, whether, on the motion for leave to introduce the bill, there shall be debate? The Chair has decided that there shall be no debate. Those who vote "yea" on my motion to lay the appeal of the Senator from Massachusetts on the table will vote that there is to be no debate upon the permission to offer the bill, and then the question will be taken upon granting leave.
Mr. Walker. The Chair decides differently. The Chair decides, if I understand, that it will carry the bill on the table. Then how can we ever reach the question of leave, when objection is made?
Mr. Weller. I object to this discussion. The Chair will decide that question when it arises. It does not arise now. I insist that the Secretary shall go on and call the roll.
Mr. Walker. Suppose some of us object to it?
Mr. Weller. Then I object to your discussing it.
The Presiding Officer. The Chair, on reflection, thinks that the motion, if agreed to, would not have a further effect than to bring up the question of granting leave.
Mr. Bright. I desire to understand the Chair. I do not wish to insist on anything that is not right, or that is not within the rules. That I insist upon having. The honorable Senator from Louisiana is right in his conclusions as to his motion, provided he had a right to make the motion; but I doubt whether he had a right to make that motion while the motion of the honorable Senator from New Hampshire was pending. I do not wish, however, to consume the time of the Senate. If the effect of the decision of the Chair is to bring us back to the question as to whether we shall receive the bill or not, I will yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer. That is it.
Mr. Bright. Very well.
Mr. Sumner. Before the vote is taken, allow me to read a few words from the Rules and Orders, and from Jefferson's Manual.