The Project Gutenberg eBook of Charles Sumner; his complete works, volume 12 (of 20), by Charles Sumner.

Such is the general principle, officially declared. And now, Sir, I shall read the commentary of this same learned publicist on these very Instructions in a private letter which I have received from him this morning. Bear in mind, Sir, that the writer is a student of the Laws of War, that he vindicates their exercise, and that in proper cases he asserts the right of retaliation; and now allow me to present his criticism on the retaliation proposed.

“I am unqualifiedly against the retaliation resolutions concerning prisoners of war. The provision that the Southerners in our hands shall be watched over by national soldiers who have been in Southern pens is unworthy of any great people or high-minded statesman. I am not opposed to retaliation because it strikes those who are not or may not be guilty of the outrage we wish to put an end to. That is the terrible character of almost all retaliation in war. I abhor this revenge on prisoners of war, because we would sink thereby to the level of the enemy’s shame and dishonor. All retaliation has some limit. If we fight with Indians who slowly roast their prisoners, we cannot roast in turn the Indians whom we may capture. And what is more, I defy Congress or Government to make the Northern people treat captured Southerners as our sons are treated by them. God be thanked, you could not do it; and if you could, how it would brutalize our own people! I feel the cruelty as keenly as any one; I grieve most bitterly that people whom we and all the world have taken to possess the common attributes of humanity, and who, after all, are our kin, have sunk so loathsomely low; I feel the hardship of seeing no immediate and direct remedy, except conquering and trampling out the vile Rebellion; but I maintain that the proposed (yet unfeasible) retaliation is not the remedy. Indeed, calmly to maintain our ground would do us in the end far more good. Revenge is passion, and ought never to enter the sphere of public action. Passion always detracts from power.

“I believe that the ineffable cruelty practised against our men has been equalled in the history of our race by the Spanish treatment of the Indians, and by the Inquisition; but counter cruelty would not mend matters. Those who can allow such crimes would not be moved by cruelties inflicted upon their soldiers in our hands. These cruelties, therefore, would be simply revenge, not retaliation; for retaliation, as an element of the Law of War, and of Nations in general, implies the idea of thereby stopping a certain evil. But no mortal shall indulge in revenge.

“I am, indeed, against all dainty treatment of the prisoners in our hands; but, for the love of our country and the great destiny of our people, do not sink, even in single cases, to the level of our unhappy, shameless enemy.”

I have read this letter, and I quote it as authority, because it is by the very pen which embodied retaliation in the Instructions to the Armies of the United States.

There is another authority which I quote. It is Phillimore, the accomplished publicist, whose elaborate work on the Law of Nations has a learning second only to that of Grotius in treating the same subject. Recording excesses of war by the French, this Englishman says:—

In other words, the Laws of War are essentially humane, and not to be changed by any spasm of barbarism in an enemy.

A debate of several days ensued, in which Mr. Wade and Mr. Howard argued earnestly for the resolution of the Committee, and they were sustained by Mr. Gratz Brown, of Missouri, Mr. Howe, of Wisconsin, Mr. Harlan, of Iowa, Mr. Clark, of New Hampshire, Mr. Wilkinson, of Minnesota, Mr. Chandler, of Michigan, and Mr. Lane, of Indiana. On the other side were Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, Mr. Henderson, of Missouri, Mr. Foster, of Connecticut, Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, Mr. Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland, Mr. Richardson, of Illinois, Mr. McDougall, of California, and Mr. Doolittle, of Wisconsin. Mr. Chandler especially condemned the position of Mr. Sumner. Here he said:—

“Sir, the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Sumner] has brought in a sublimated specimen of humanitarianism that does not apply to these accursed Rebels at this time. They do not appreciate that kind of humanitarianism. I expected those men who desire that the Rebellion should succeed to oppose retaliation, and to oppose it to the bitter end; but I did not expect the Senator from Massachusetts to come in here and say that it was inexpedient to protect our suffering prisoners.”

Mr. Sumner. “I have not said so.”

Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, moved as a substitute for Mr. Sumner’s amendment a simple resolution requiring the President “to appoint two commissioners to confer with the Confederate authorities, with a view of devising some practicable plan for the relief and better treatment of our prisoners of war.” Mr. Clark, of New Hampshire, offered still another substitute, to be considered when in order:—

“That Congress earnestly calls the attention of the President to the condition and treatment of our prisoners of war in Rebel prisons and camps; and if, for reasons satisfactory to or controlling the Executive, they cannot be exchanged, desires that he should employ every means in his power, embracing retaliation to such a degree as may be proper and effectual, to prevent the continuance and recurrence of such barbarities, and to compel the insurgents to observe the laws of civilized warfare.”

Mr. Wade, who was urging the original resolution, also gave notice of an amendment, to strike out all after the word “retaliation,” and insert as follows:—

“That the executive and military authorities of the United States are hereby directed to retaliate upon the prisoners of the enemy in such manner and kind as shall be effective in deterring him from the perpetration in future of cruel and barbarous treatment of our soldiers.”

Mr. Wade recognized the change so far as to say, “Now, if a Senator is for retaliation, if he is for the principle of it, he cannot have it in a milder form than it is there.” Mr. Morrill proposed to strike out the words “and kind,” and insert, instead, “in conformity to the Laws of Nations,” which amendment was accepted by Mr. Wade.

January 28th, in the course of the debate, Mr. Sumner said:—

Mr. President,—Listening with interest to this debate, and noting the various propositions to modify the original resolution of the Committee, especially that of the Senator [Mr. Wade] who has urged it so vehemently, and then again the modification even of this modification, I have been reminded of the story told by Byron [56] of Mr. Fox, afterwards British minister at Washington, and now sleeping in our Congressional burial-ground, who said of himself, after an illness in Naples, that he was “so changed that his oldest creditors would hardly know him.” But no illness could work a greater change than is promised in the resolution of the Committee. In the form it is about to assume, its oldest supporter will hardly know it. The ancient legend of the ship of Theseus is revived. That famous ship, which bore the Athenian hero on his adventurous expedition to Crete, was piously preserved in the arsenal of Athens, where its decaying timbers were renewed, until, in the lapse of time, every part of the original ship had disappeared, and nothing but the name remained. Are we not witnessing a similar process, to end, I trust, in a similar disappearance?

In its original form, the resolution so earnestly maintained by my friends from Ohio and Michigan called for retaliation in kind,—eye for eye, tooth for tooth, cruelty for cruelty, freezing for freezing, starvation for starvation, death for death. The President was commanded to imitate Rebel barbarism in all respects, point by point. This command I felt it my duty to resist. I said nothing against retaliation according to the laws and usages of civilized nations, for that I know is one of the terrible incidents of war; but I resisted a principle which civilization disowns. The resolutions I offered as a substitute were intended as a sort of “earthwork” in support of this resistance. Perhaps they have already accomplished their purpose, inasmuch as Senators have evacuated their original position.

The question is solemn enough, and yet, as I recall the original resolution, I am reminded of an incident, more comic than serious, which occurred at Paris, while occupied by the conquering Prussians, in 1814. A Prussian soldier was brought before the Governor, charged with unmercifully beating a Frenchman, at whose house he was billeted, for not supplying a bottle of Berlin weissbier, which the Prussian insisted upon drinking. The Governor spoke of unreasonableness in the demand, and declared that he should be obliged to inflict severe punishment, when the Prussian soldier set up the Law of Retaliation. “I was a little boy,” said he, “when a French dragoon beat my father because he was unable to find a bottle of claret in our whole village, and I then swore, that, if ever I reached France, I would beat a Frenchman for not getting me a bottle of weissbier. Am I not right?” This was retaliation in kind, and retrospective in operation, like that of the original resolution.

Much as this resolution is changed, so that it no longer requires retaliation in kind, I think it might be changed still further. It is not enough, on such an occasion, and especially after avowals made in this Chamber, to say that retaliation shall be according to the principles of Public Law. Montesquieu, in his “Spirit of Laws,” exhibits the uncertainty of this language. These are his words:—

The resolution, therefore, for the sake of certainty, and to give double assurance that humanity shall not suffer, ought to be still further amended, by limiting the retaliation to the usages of civilized society. This amendment becomes the more needful since Senators argue that by the principles of public law the intolerable cruelties of the Rebellion may be retaliated.

I desire to repeat my unalterable conviction that these cruelties cannot be retaliated in kind. And here I call attention to the opinions of an illustrious citizen, only recently removed from the duties of this world. I refer to the late Edward Everett, who, in a speech at Faneuil Hall, a few days before his lamented death, thus testifies in what may be called his dying words:—

You will not fail to observe how positive is his opinion on the limits of retaliation, and its character when carried beyond proper limits. And here it is proper to remark, that Mr. Everett was not only a patriot, who, in the latter trials of the Republic, devoted himself ably, purely, and successfully to the vindication and advancement of the national cause, but he was a publicist, who had profoundly studied the Law of Nations. Few in our history have understood it better. His last labors were devoted to this important subject. At the time of his death he was preparing a course of lectures upon it. Therefore, when, in the name of Public Law, he speaks against any imitation of Rebel barbarism, it is with the voice of authority.

From one eminent publicist I pass to another. On a former occasion I took the liberty of introducing a familiar letter from Professor Lieber, once of South Carolina, now of New York. The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Howard], not content with attempting an answer to the learned professor, proceeded to language with regard to him which I am sure his careful judgment cannot approve. The friend whose letter I read needs no praise as a practical writer and thinker on questions of International Law. On account of his acknowledged fitness as a master of this science, he was selected as commissioner to prepare instructions for the armies of the United States, constituting a most important chapter of the Law of Nations. Those instructions are the evidence of his ability and judgment. So long as they are followed by our Government, it will be difficult for the Senator, learned as he unquestionably is, to impeach their distinguished author. There is no Senator, not excepting the Senator from Michigan, who might not be proud to have such a monument of fame. But he is no mere theorist. It was on the field of battle, where, as a youthful soldier, he was left for dead, that he began a practical acquaintance with those Laws of War which he has done so much to expound.

And now let me read a commentary on the Law of Retaliation by this authority. I quote from an article which has already appeared in the New York “Times.”

“No mawkish sentimentality has induced the writer to express his views. He has had dear friends in those Southern pens, which have become the very symbols of revolting barbarity; but he desires, for this very reason, that the subject be weighed without passion, which never counsels well,—especially without the passion of mere vengeance. Let us bring down this general call for retaliation to practical and detailed measures. It is supposed, then, that retaliation is resolved upon; what next? The order is given to harass, starve, expose, and torture, say twenty thousand prisoners in our hands, until their bones pierce the skin, and they die idiots in their filth. Why should things be demanded which every one knows the Northern man is incapable of doing?

“If, however, by retaliation he meant that captured Rebels in our hands should be cut off from the pleasant comforts of life which Northerners subservient to the South love to extend to them, then, indeed, we fully agree. This treasonable over-kindness ought never to have been permitted. It has had the worst effect on the arrogance of our enemy; but prohibiting it is not, and cannot be called, retaliation.

“Let us not be driven from the position of manly calmness and moral dignity; and let us, on the other hand, be stern, so stern that our severity shall impress the prisoners that they are such. But let us not follow Rebel examples. It is too sickening, too vile.”

Such is the testimony of Francis Lieber, in entire, but independent, harmony with the testimony of Edward Everett. As authority, nothing further can be desired. And yet the question is still debated, and grave Senators take counsel of their indignation rather than of the law.

The earnestness which has characterized this discussion attests the interest of the subject, and the interest here is only a reflection of that throughout the country. When you speak of our brave officers and soldiers suffering, languishing, pining, dying in Rebel prisons, you touch a chord which vibrates in every patriot bosom. He must be cold, sluggish, and inhuman,—so cold “that nought can warm his blood, Sir, but a fever,”[59]—who is not moved to every possible effort for their redemption.

I am happy to see that the Secretary of War is not insensible to this commanding duty. Here is an extract from a communication which he sent to the House of Representatives as late as January 21st:—

“On the 15th October the subject of exchanges was placed under the direction of Lieutenant-General Grant, with full authority to take any steps he might deem proper to effect the release and exchange of our soldiers, and of loyal persons, held as prisoners by the Rebel authorities. He was instructed that it was the desire of the President that no efforts consistent with national safety and honor should be spared to effect the prompt release of all soldiers and loyal persons in captivity to the Rebels as prisoners of war, or on any other grounds, and the subject was committed to him with full authority to act in the premises as he should deem right and proper. Under this authority the subject of exchanges has from that time continued in his charge, and such efforts have been made as he deemed proper to obtain the release of our prisoners.

“An arrangement was made for the supply of our prisoners,—the articles to be distributed under the direction of our own officers, paroled for that purpose; and the corresponding privilege was extended to the Rebel authorities. In order to afford every facility for relief, special exchanges have been offered, whenever desired on behalf of our prisoners. Such exchanges have in a few instances been permitted by the Rebel authorities, but in many others they have been denied.

“A large number of exchanges, including all the sick, has been effected within a recent period. The Commissary General of Prisoners has been directed to make a detailed report of all the exchanges that have been accomplished since the general exchange ceased. It will be furnished to the House of Representatives as soon as completed.

“The last communication of General Grant gives reason to believe that a full and complete exchange of all prisoners will speedily be made. It also appears from his statement that weekly supplies are furnished to our prisoners, and distributed by officers of our own selection.”[60]

Let these instructions be followed, and it is difficult to see what remains to be done. Exchange, retaliation, and every other agency “right and proper,” are fully authorized in the discretion of the commanding general. There is nothing in the arsenal of war he may not employ. What more is needed? But this brings me again to the proposition before the Senate.

The Committee, not content with what has been done,—distrustful, perhaps, of the commanding general,—propose that Congress shall instruct the President to enter upon a system of retaliation, where we shall imitate as precisely as possible Rebel barbarism, and make our prisons the scenes of torments we here denounce. Why, Sir, to state the case is to answer it. The Senator from Michigan, who advocates so eloquently this unprecedented retaliation, attempted a description of the torments making the Rebel prisons horrible, but language failed him. After speaking of their “immeasurable criminality,” and “the horrors of those scenes,” which he said were “absolutely indescribable,” beggaring even his affluence of language and of passion, he proceeded to ask that we should do these same things,—that we should take the lives of prisoners, even by freezing and starvation, or turn them into living skeletons,—by Act of Congress.

Sir, the Law of Retaliation, which he invokes, has its limits, and these are found in the laws of civilized society. Admit the Law of Retaliation; yet you cannot escape from its circumscription. As well escape from the planet on which we live. What civilization forbids cannot be done. Your enemy may be barbarous and cruel, but you cannot be barbarous and cruel. The rule is clear and unquestionable. Perhaps the true principle of law on this precise point was never better expressed than by one of our masters, William Shakespeare, natural jurist as well as poet, when he makes Macbeth exclaim,—

So with us now. We are permitted to do all that may become men, but nothing more.

Surely nobody will argue that the “barbarities of Andersonville,” and all those tortures we deplore, can behoove men. As well undertake, by way of retaliation, to revive the boot and thumb-screw of the Inquisition, the fires of Smithfield, “Luke’s iron crown and Damien’s bed of steel,” or to repeat that execrable crime pictured by Dante, in one of his most admired passages, where Ugolino and his children were shut up in a tower, without food or water, and left to die slowly, cruelly, wickedly, by starvation:—

Thanks to the immortal poet who has blasted forever this sickening enormity, and rendered its imitation impossible! Thanks to that mighty voice which has given new sanction to the mandate of Public Law. And yet in this terrible case there was retaliation, and the famished victim is revealed as ferociously gnawing the skull of his tormentor. But this was not on earth.

It is when we consider precisely the conduct of the Rebels, as represented,—when we read the stories of their atrocities,—when we call to mind the sufferings of our men in their hands,—when we look on the pictures introduced into this discussion, where photographic art has sought to exhibit the living skeletons,—when the whole scene in all its horror is before us, and our souls are filled with unutterable anguish, that we confess how difficult, how absolutely impossible, it is for us to follow this savage example. And just in proportion as this treatment of our soldiers transcends the usages of civilized society must the example be rejected. Such is the law you cannot disobey.

Nor am I to be considered indifferent to the condition of those unhappy prisoners. I do not yield to the Committee, or to any Senator, in ardor or anxiety for their protection. Whatever can be done I am ready to do. But, as American citizens, they have an interest that we should do nothing by which our country shall forfeit the great place belonging to it in the vanguard of nations. It cannot be best for them that our country should do an unworthy thing. It cannot be best for them that the national destiny should be thus darkened. Duties are in proportion to destinies, and from the very heights of our example I argue again that we cannot allow ourselves, under any passing passion or resentment, to accept a policy which history must condemn. There is not a patriot soldier who would not cry out, “Let me suffer, but save my country!”

Even if you make up your minds to do this thing, you cannot. The whole idea is impracticable. The attempt must fail, because human nature is against you. “Nemo repente turpissimus.” A humane and civilized people cannot suddenly become inhuman and uncivilized. Conscience, heart, soul and body, will all rise against you. From every side will be repeated that generous cry which comes to us from the darkest day of French history, when the courageous governor said to the monarch who ordered the massacre of St. Bartholomew, “Sire, I have under me good citizens and brave soldiers, but not a single executioner”; or that other later cry, when the French Convention, under the lead of Barère, decreed that all English prisoners should be shot,—“We will not shoot them,” said a stout-hearted sergeant; “if the Convention takes pleasure in killing prisoners, let members kill them and eat them, like savages as they are.” But the citizens and soldiers of the armies of the United States are not less generous. They, too, would cry out, “Let members of Congress do this work, if it is to be done; but do not impose it upon a fellow-man.”

Mr. President, with pain I differ from valued friends whose friendship is among the treasures of my life. But I cannot help it. I cannot do otherwise. It is long since I first raised my voice in this Chamber against the “Barbarism of Slavery,” and I have never ceased to denounce it in season and out of season. But the Rebellion is nothing but that very barbarism armed for battle. Plainly it is our duty to overcome it, not to imitate it. Here I stand.

January 31st, on motion of Mr. Sumner, it was still further amended so as to read, “in conformity with the laws and usages of war among civilized nations,”—Yeas 27, Nays 13. Mr. Sumner then withdrew his substitute, remarking that he did so because the original resolution had undergone such modification as to be in substantial harmony with the resolutions introduced by him. After other amendments, the original resolution was passed by the Senate; but it was never acted on in the House of Representatives.

This effort against Retaliation attracted attention and sympathy at the time.

Hon. Israel Washburn, formerly a Representative in Congress from Maine, being in Washington, wrote:—

“I shall not see you again before leaving the city, but I will not go without thanking you from my heart’s heart for the glorious resolutions upon Retaliation which you offered in the Senate yesterday. Our country must live in the atmosphere of those resolutions, or bear no life worth having.”

John B. Kettell wrote from Boston:—

“I have read in the papers of this morning a telegraphic report of the proceedings of the Senate on the resolution in relation to retaliation upon Rebel prisoners for cruel treatment to Union prisoners, and especially the resolutions offered by you as a substitute for the resolution before the Senate. Although not approving the policy of the Administration, and therefore conscientiously opposed to most of its measures, allow me to thank you from the bottom of my heart for the manly tone and lofty Christian sentiment which pervade the resolutions offered and so ably defended by yourself.”

Hon. Daniel W. Alvord wrote from Greenfield, Massachusetts:—

“I wish also to thank you for your resolutions on Retaliation. I am the more impelled to do this because I think it probable that some of our friends in the State will remonstrate with you for having offered them. I have heard retaliation in kind vehemently advocated by good men in Boston. But it seems to me that it would be an indelible blot upon our fame, if, in a war with savages, we should imitate their savage cruelties. I know that retaliation by inflicting death for death may sometimes be necessary in war. But the torture of prisoners nothing can justify. If they may be tortured by hunger or cold, so they may, as well, by fire, or by the rack.”

M. T. Johnstone, of the United States Coast Survey, wrote from Washington:—

“A copy of your speech on the treatment of prisoners of war has just fallen into my hands. I think the country under deep obligations to you for that speech, and for saving it from either acknowledging or practising the principle of retaliation.”

The following communication from General Robert Anderson, of the Army of the United States, who commanded at Fort Sumter when South Carolina madly fired upon that national stronghold, contains the testimony of a soldier.

“New York City, January 25, 1865.

“Hon. Charles Sumner, U. S. Senate.

“Honored Sir,—The approbation of strangers is sometimes, I know, not unacceptable. I trust, therefore, that you will pardon me for giving vent to the promptings of my heart, in offering you my thanks for the noble, manly, and Christian sentiments which characterize your resolutions introduced in the Senate yesterday, in reference to the subject of Retaliation. No one would go farther than I would, to put down, with a vigorous and resolute hand, this most accursed Rebellion. But, in God’s name, Sir, let it be done in such a manner that those who live after us may be able to say, that, in all this time of trial, not one act was sanctioned or permitted by our Government which was not becoming us as a civilized and Christian nation. And God will bless and prosper us only as we do so act. My earnest prayer is, that He will endue our rulers with wisdom, and soon give peace and prosperity and happiness to our bleeding land.

“With the renewal of my thanks for your having so beautifully, so ably, so nobly advocated the cause of humanity, which is the cause of Christ,

“I am, Sir, with high respect, your obedient servant,

“Robert Anderson.”

In a later letter General Anderson returned to the subject:—

“The sentiments you express in your speech are such as become a Christian and a patriot. We, as a nation, are not at liberty to follow the example of men who claim to owe allegiance to a Government not recognized among nations,—the self-assumed name of which will, by God’s blessing, soon sink into oblivion.”

General Donaldson, of the Army of the Cumberland, and of the staff of the distinguished General Thomas, wrote from Nashville:—

“Though but slightly acquainted with Mr. Sumner, I trust he will allow me to tender my thanks as an American for his noble resolutions on the subject of Retaliation. They are greater than any speech, and such as a Howard might have written, had he lived in the days of the mighty crime.”

Such were some of the voices, not only from citizens, but from the Army.

ADMISSION OF A COLORED LAWYER TO THE BAR OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

John S. Rock, Esq., was a colored lawyer in Boston, who, after studying medicine, accomplished himself in the law, and visited Europe. In the hope of advancing his race and of overturning an obnoxious precedent, he formed the idea of being admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States, even during the life of Chief Justice Taney; but Mr. Sumner, to whom he applied, could not encourage him, while the author of the Dred Scott decision presided over the Court. With Mr. Chase as Chief Justice it was otherwise. Before presenting him, Mr. Sumner communicated with the Chief Justice, who undertook to sound his brethren and smooth the way. After some delay he let Mr. Sumner know that the motion might be made. It seems, that, by usage of the Court, the Chief Justice acted on the admission of counsellors without consulting the rest of the bench, and it was understood that the usage would be recognized in this case.

As only a citizen could be a counsellor of the Supreme Court, and, according to the Dred Scott decision, a colored person was not a citizen, the admission of Mr. Rock was regarded by the country as tantamount to a reversal of that decision.

An informal and intimate correspondence between Mr. Sumner and the Chief Justice belongs to the history of this case.

On the receipt of a letter from Mr. Rock, saying, “We now have a great and good man for our Chief Justice, and with him I think my color will not be a bar to my admission,” Mr. Sumner wrote to the Chief Justice, inclosing the letter.

“Senate Chamber, 21st December, 1864.

“My Dear Chase,—Please read the inclosed letter, and let me know what I shall do with regard to it.

“Mr. Rock is an estimable colored lawyer, who, as you will see, is cordially recommended by Governor Andrew and others in the public service. He is one of several colored lawyers in Massachusetts, who practise in all our courts, and are always received with courtesy.

“Before I came into the Senate, now several years ago, I was counsel in a case before our Massachusetts Supreme Court,[62] where one of these colored lawyers was my associate, and I remember well the very great kindness and attention with which he was received by Chief Justice Shaw and all the bench.

“I mention these things that you may see something of Mr. Rock’s title to admission to the Supreme Court of the United States.

“I know not how far the Dred Scott decision may stand in the way.

“Of course, the admission of a colored lawyer to the bar of the Supreme Court would make it difficult for any restriction on account of color to be maintained anywhere. Street cars would be open afterwards.[63]

“Ever yours,

“Charles Sumner.”

The following note, written in pencil, and sent to Mr. Sumner at his seat in the Senate, was the prompt answer:—

“Supreme Court Room, December 21, 1864.

“Dear Sumner,—I will confer with the Judges on Saturday, which is consultation day. It is not likely that any, or any serious, objection will be made.

“Yours faithfully,

“S. P. Chase.”

Not hearing from the Chief Justice, Mr. Sumner sent the following reminder:—

“In re John S. Rock, Counsellor at Law, Massachusetts.

“What say you?

“C. S.”

“Senate Chamber, Thursday, 15th January, 1865.”

This was returned with the following reply, written in pencil on the same paper:—

“Nothing at present,—except not forgotten.

“S. P. C.”

Another note, written also in pencil, opened the door.

“January 23, 1865.

“Dear Sumner,—You can make your motion for Mr. Rock’s admission at any time which suits your convenience.

“Yours ever,

“S. P. Chase.”

Mr. Rock, who was waiting in Boston, appeared February 1st, and was at once presented by Mr. Sumner. The few formal words which passed on this occasion are not without interest.

As soon as the judges had taken their seats, Mr. Sumner rose, and, with Mr. Rock standing by his side, said:—

I ask leave to present John S. Rock, Esq., a Counsellor at Law of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, and now move that he be admitted as a Counsellor of this Court.

The Chief Justice bowed, and said:—

“Let him come forward and take the oath.”

The oath was then administered by Mr. Middleton, Clerk of the Court. At the same time, on motion of Mr. Sumner, Francis V. Balch, Esq., of Boston, his private secretary, was also admitted.

This incident, marking a stage in the battle for Equal Rights, was extensively noticed at home and abroad. It occurred on the day after the final passage in the House of Representatives of the Constitutional Amendment abolishing Slavery, and the correspondent of the Boston Journal remarked the association of the two events.

“The Slave Power, which received its constitutional death-blow yesterday in Congress, writhes this morning on account of the admission of a colored lawyer, John S. Rock, of Boston, as a member of the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States.… The rage depicted in the countenances of some of the old Hunkers present at this invasion of their citadel beggars description.”

The correspondent of the New York Tribune announced the event as “The Dred Scott Decision buried in the Supreme Court,” and then broke forth enthusiastically:—

“O augustly simple funeral cortège! O dead, wrapped in the cerements that the divine hand of Revolution folds its victims with, augustly exciting in your stormy birth, transcendently mischievous in your little life!—Senator Charles Sumner and Negro Lawyer John S. Rock the pall-bearers,—the room of the Supreme Court of the United States the Potter’s Field,—the corpse the Dred Scott decision!

“Through the door that was too narrow to freely let out the bearers that bore Charles Sumner’s inanimate form from the Senate Chamber, where he had been stricken down by the assassins of the Slave Power, Charles Sumner to-day marched back, leading a negro by the hand, and, standing upon the very spot that had been stained with his blood for demanding freedom and equality for the blacks in America, demanded of the Supreme Court of the United States to enroll among its members an African lawyer, and to license him to practise at its bar. The black man was admitted.”

Then mentioning the motion of Mr. Sumner, the same correspondent says:—

“The grave to bury the Dred Scott decision was in that one sentence dug, and it yawned there, wide open, under the very eyes of some of the judges who had participated in the juridical crime against Democracy and Humanity. The assenting nod of the great head of the Chief Justice tumbled in the corse and filled up the pit, and the black counsellor of the Supreme Court got on to it and stamped it down, and smoothed the earth for his walk to the rolls of the Court.

“… A few lawyers of the old régime looked on, stunned somewhat, but rapidly growing in wisdom, and mixing deference to destiny with their instinctive reluctance to this revolutionary intrusion.”

Mr. Cobden, writing from England, also associated this event with the Constitutional Amendment. In a letter shortly before his much lamented death, he said:—

“I feel it a pleasant duty to give you my best congratulations on the recent proceedings within and without your Halls of Congress. The vote on the Amendment of the Constitution was a memorable and glorious event in your history. Another incident—that of your introduction of a colored man to the Supreme Court—was hardly less interesting. In all these proceedings at Washington you ought to be allowed to indulge the feelings of a triumphant general. You served as a volunteer in the forlorn hope, when the battle of Emancipation seemed a hopeless struggle. Your position within the Halls of Congress was very different from that of the agitators out of doors, meritorious as were their labors. I have served in both capacities, and know the difference between addressing an audience of partisans at a public meeting and a hostile parliamentary assembly.… I heartily congratulate you.”

Doubtless the admission of a colored lawyer to the Supreme Court helped prepare the way for admission of his race to the rights of citizenship, and especially the right to vote.

PARTICIPATION OF REBEL STATES NOT NECESSARY IN RATIFICATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS.

Resolved, That all acts, executive and legislative, in pursuance of the Constitution, and all treaties made under the authority of the United States, are valid to all intents and purposes throughout the United States, although certain Rebel States fail to participate therein, and that the same rule is equally applicable to an Amendment of the Constitution.

Resolved, That the Amendment of the Constitution prohibiting Slavery throughout the United States will be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution, whenever ratified by three fourths of the States de facto, exercising the powers and prerogatives of the United States under the Constitution thereof.

Resolved, That any other rule, requiring the participation of the Rebel States, while illogical and unreasonable, is dangerous in its consequences, inasmuch as all recent Presidential proclamations, including that of Emancipation, also all recent Acts of Congress, including those creating the national debt and establishing a national currency, and also all recent treaties, including the treaty with Great Britain for the extinction of the slave-trade, have been made, enacted, or ratified, respectively, without any participation of the Rebel States.

Resolved, That any other rule must tend to postpone the great day when the prohibition of Slavery will be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution of the United States; but the rule herewith declared will assure the immediate ratification of the prohibition, and the consummation of the national desires.