At the proper time I shall ask the reference of this bill to the Committee on Finance; and if I can have the attention of my honorable friend, the Chairman of that Committee [Mr. Sherman], I should like now, as I have ventured to introduce the bill, to specify for his consideration seven different reasons in favor of it. It will take me only one minute.

Mr. Sumner. Now, Mr. President, I wish at this moment merely to indicate the reasons in favor of that proposition.

1. It will create a demand for national bonds, and to this extent fortify the national credit.

2. It will tend to satisfy those parts of the country, especially at the South and West, where currency and banks are wanting, and thus arrest a difficult question.

3. It will not expand or contract the currency; so that the opposite parties on these questions may support it.

4. Under it the banks will gradually strengthen themselves and prepare to resume specie payments.

5. It will give the South and West the opportunity to organize banks, and will interest those parts of the country to this extent in the national securities and the national banking system, by which both will be strengthened.

6. It will within a reasonable time relieve the country of the whole greenback system, and thus dispose of an important question.

7. It will hasten the return to specie payments.

Now I believe every one of these reasons is valid, and I commend them to my excellent friend from Ohio.

COLORED PHYSICIANS.

I hope there can be no objection to this proposition, which has become necessary from a recent incident. A medical practitioner in Washington, Dr. Augusta, who had served as a surgeon in the Army of the United States and was brevetted as a Lieutenant-Colonel, who had enjoyed office and honor under the National Government, has been excluded from the Medical Society of the District of Columbia on that old reason so often and persistently urged, merely of color. It is true that Dr. Augusta is guilty of a skin which is a shade different from that prevailing in the Medical Society, but nobody can impeach his character or his professional position. Dr. Purvis, another practitioner, obnoxious only from the skin, was excluded at the same time. There is no doubt that this was accomplished by an organized effort, quickened by color-phobia.

This exclusion, besides its stigma on a race, is a practical injury to these gentlemen, and to their patients also, who are thus shut out from valuable opportunities and advantages. By a rule of the Medical Society, “No member of this association shall consult with or meet in a professional way any resident practitioner of the District who is not a member thereof, after said practitioner shall have resided six months in said District.” Thus do members of the Society constitute themselves a medical oligarchy. When asked to consult with Dr. Augusta, some of them have replied: “We would like to consult with Dr. Augusta; we believe him to be a good doctor; but he does not belong to our Society, and therefore we must decline; but we will take charge of the case”: and this has been sometimes done. Is not this a hardship? Should it be allowed to exist?

Details illustrate still further the character of this wrong. These colored practitioners are licensed, like members of the Society; but this license does not give them the privilege of attending the meetings of the Society, where medical and surgical subjects are discussed, and where peculiar and interesting cases with their appropriate treatment are communicated for the benefit of the profession; so that they are shut out from this interesting source of information, which is like a constant education, and also from the opportunity of submitting the cases in their own practice.

I confess, Sir, that I cannot think of the medical profession at the National Capital engaged in this warfare on their colored brethren without sentiments which it is difficult to restrain. Their conduct, in its direct effect, degrades a long-suffering and deeply injured race; but it also degrades themselves. Nobody can do such a meanness without degradation. In my opinion these white oligarchs ought to have notice, and I give them notice now, that this outrage shall not be allowed to continue without remedy, if I can obtain it through Congress. The time has passed for any such pretension.

I hope, Sir, there can be no objection to the resolution. It ought to pass unanimously. Who will array himself on the side of this wrong?

THE LATE HON. WILLIAM PITT FESSENDEN, SENATOR OF MAINE.

Of all the present Senate, one only besides myself witnessed his entry into this Chamber. I cannot forget it. He came in the midst of that terrible debate on the Kansas and Nebraska Bill by which the country was convulsed to its centre, and his arrival had the effect of a reinforcement on a field of battle. Those who stood for Freedom then were few in numbers,—not more than fourteen,—while thirty-seven Senators in solid column voted to break the faith originally plighted to Freedom, and to overturn a time-honored landmark, opening that vast Mesopotamian region to the curse of Slavery. Those anxious days are with difficulty comprehended by a Senate where Freedom rules. One more in our small number was a sensible addition. We were no longer fourteen, but fifteen. His reputation at the bar and his fame in the other House gave assurance which was promptly sustained. He did not wait, but at once entered into the debate with all those resources which afterwards became so famous. The scene that ensued exhibited his readiness and courage. While saying that the people of the North were fatigued with the threat of Disunion, that they considered it as “mere noise and nothing else,” he was interrupted by Mr. Butler, of South Carolina, always ready to speak for Slavery, exclaiming, “If such sentiments as yours prevail, I want a dissolution right away,”—a characteristic intrusion doubly out of order,—to which the new-comer rejoined, “Do not delay it on my account; do not delay it on account of anybody at the North.” The effect was electric; but this instance was not alone. Douglas, Cass, and Butler interrupted only to be worsted by one who had just ridden into the lists. The feelings of the other side were expressed by the Senator from South Carolina, who, after one of the flashes of debate which he had provoked, exclaimed: “Very well, go on; I have no hope for you.” All this will be found in the “Globe,”[185] precisely as I give it; but the “Globe” could not picture the exciting scene,—the Senator from Maine erect, firm, immovable as a jutting promontory against which the waves of Ocean tossed and broke in dissolving spray. There he stood. Not a Senator, loving Freedom, who did not feel on that day that a champion had come.

This scene, so brilliant in character, illustrates Mr. Fessenden’s long career in the Senate. All present were moved, while those at a distance were less affected. His speech, which was argumentative, direct, and pungent, exerted more influence on those who heard it than on those who only read it, vindicating his place as debater rather than orator. This place he held to the end, without a superior,—without a peer. Nobody could match him in immediate and incisive reply. His words were swift, and sharp as a cimeter,—or, borrowing an illustration from an opposite quarter, he “shot flying” and with unerring aim. But while this great talent secured for him always the first honors of debate, it was less important with the country, which, except in rare instances, is more impressed by ideas and by those forms in which truth is manifest.

The Senate has changed much from its original character, when, shortly after the formation of the National Government, a Nova Scotia paper, in a passage copied by one of our own journals, while declaring that “the habits of the people here are very favorable to oratory,” could say, “There is but one assembly in the whole range of the Federal Union in which eloquence is deemed unnecessary, and, I believe, even absurd and obtrusive,—to wit, the Senate, or upper house of Congress. They are merely a deliberative meeting, in which every man delivers his concise opinion, one leg over the other, as they did in the first Congress, where an harangue was a great rarity.”[186] Speech was then for business and immediate effect in the Chamber. Since then the transformation has proceeded, speech becoming constantly more important, until now, without neglect of business, the Senate has become a centre from which to address the country. A seat here is a lofty pulpit with a mighty sounding-board, and the whole wide-spread people is the congregation.

As Mr. Fessenden rarely spoke except for business, what he said was restricted in its influence, but it was most effective in this Chamber. Here was his empire, and his undisputed throne. Of perfect integrity and austerest virtue, he was inaccessible to those temptations which in various forms beset the avenues of public life. Most faithfully and constantly did he watch the interests intrusted to him. Here he was a model. Holding the position of Chairman of the Finance Committee, while it yet had those double duties which are now divided between two important committees, he became the guardian of the National Treasury, both in its receipts and its expenditures, so that nothing was added to it or taken from it without his knowledge; and how truly he discharged this immense trust all will attest. Nothing could leave the Treasury without showing a passport. This service was the more momentous from the magnitude of the transactions involved; for it was during the whole period of the war, when appropriations responded to loans and taxes,—all being on a scale beyond precedent in the world’s history. On these questions, sometimes so sensitive and difficult and always so grave, his influence was beyond that of any other Senator and constantly swayed the Senate. All that our best generals were in arms he was in the financial field.

Absorbed in his great duties, and confined too much by the training of a profession which too often makes its follower slave where he is not master, he forgot sometimes that championship which shone so brightly when he first entered the Senate. Ill-health came with its disturbing influence, and, without any of the nature of Hamlet, his conduct at times suggested those words by which Hamlet pictures the short-comings of life. Too often, in his case, “the native hue of resolution was sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought”; and perhaps I might follow the words of Shakespeare further, and picture “enterprises of great pith and moment,” which, “with this regard, their currents turned awry and lost the name of action.”

Men are tempted by the talent which they possess; and he could not resist the impulse to employ, sometimes out of place, those extraordinary powers which he commanded so easily. More penetrating than grasping, he easily pierced the argument of his opponent, and, once engaged, he yielded to the excitement of the moment and the joy of conflict. His words warmed, as the Olympic wheel caught fire in the swiftness of the race. If on these occasions there were sparkles which fell where they should not have fallen, they cannot be remembered now. Were he still among us, face to face, it were better to say, in the words of that earliest recorded reconciliation,—

Error and frailty checker the life of man. If this were not so, earth would be heaven; for what could add to the happiness of life free from error and frailty? The Senator we mourn was human; but the error and frailty which belonged to him often took their color from virtue itself. On these he needs no silence, even if the grave which is now closing over him did not refuse its echoes except to what is good.

CUBAN BELLIGERENCY.

I shall interpose no objection to that; but I feel it my duty to suggest that it does seem to me that a discussion of that question is premature, and for this reason: there is no information with regard to those gun-boats now before the Senate, except what we derive from the newspapers. I understand that the Department of State will in a few days, as soon as the documents can be copied, communicate to the Senate all that it has with reference to our relations with Cuba, which will probably cover the question of the gun-boats. There is a question of fact and of law, and I for one am indisposed to approach its discussion until I have all the information now in the possession of the Government. At the same time my friend from Wisconsin will understand that I have no disposition to interfere with any desires he may have. If he wishes, therefore, to go on, I shall content myself with the suggestions that I have made.

Mr. President,—The Senator from Wisconsin closed by saying that he understood that eighteen of the gun-boats would leave to-morrow. I have had put into my hands a telegram received last night from New York, which I will read, as it relates to that subject:—

“To-morrow morning” is this morning.

But there are eight other boats, that are still unfinished, on the stocks, to which the resolution of the Senator from Wisconsin is applicable.

I have no disposition now to discuss the great question involved in the speech of the Senator from Wisconsin; but the Senator will pardon me, if I venture to suggest that he has misapprehended the meaning of the statute on which he relies. Certainly he has misapprehended it or I have. He has misapprehended it or the Administration has. I do not conceive that the question which he has presented can arise under the statute. The language on which he relies is as follows:—

The operative words on which the Senator relies being “any colony, district, or people,” I understand the Senator to insist that under these words Spain cannot purchase ships in the United States to cruise against her Cuban subjects now in revolt. That is the position of the Senator. He states it frankly. To that I specifically reply, that the language of the statute is entirely inapplicable. Those words, if the Senator will consult their history, were introduced for a specific purpose. It was to meet the case of the revolted Spanish colonies already for eight years in arms against the parent Government, having ships in every sea, largely possessing the territories on the Spanish main, and with independence nearly achieved.

There was no question of belligerence. It was admitted by all the civilized world. Nation after nation practically recognized it. Our Government, our courts, every department of the Government, recognized the belligerence of those Spanish colonies. Their independence was recognized more tardily, after ample discussion in these two Chambers as late as 1820; but their belligerence was a fact perfectly established and recognized by every branch of the Government. To meet their case, and for no other object, as I understand it, Mr. Miller, a Representative of South Carolina, on the 30th day of December, 1817, introduced the following resolution:—

The important words “any colony, district, or people” were introduced to cover the precise case of the revolted Spanish colonies and their precise condition at that moment, there being no question of belligerence. Now the practical question is, whether these words, introduced originally for a specific purpose, having an historic character beyond question, can be extended so as to be applied to insurgents who have not yet achieved a corporate existence,—who have no provinces, no cities, no towns, no ports, no prize courts. Such is the fact. I cannot supply the fact, if it does not exist; nor can the Senator, with his eloquence and with his ardor enlisted in this cause. We must seek the truth. The truth is found in the actual facts. Now do those facts justify the concession which the Senator requires?

The Cuban insurgents, whatever the inspiration of their action, have not reached the condition of belligerents. Such, I repeat, is the fact, and we cannot alter the fact. Here we must rely upon the evidence, which, according to all the information within my reach, is adverse. They do not come within any of the prerequisites. They have no provinces, no towns, no ports, no prize courts. Without these I am at a loss to see how they can be treated as belligerents by foreign powers. Before this great concession there must be assurance of their capacity to administer justice. Above all, there must be a Prize Court. But nobody pretends that there is any such thing.

Mr. Sumner. The Senator will pardon me, if I say I do not think it is. I think that the better way of ascertaining the facts is to send to our authorized agents in Cuba,—we have consuls at every considerable place,—and direct them to report on the facts. I understand such reports have been received by the Department of State. They will be communicated to the Senate. They are expected day by day, and they are explicit, unless I have been misinformed, on this single point,—that, whatever may be the inspiration of that insurrection, it has not yet reached that condition of maturity, that corporate character, which in point of fact makes it belligerent in character.

Mr. Sumner. The Senator confesses we are in the dark, and on this account I consider the debate premature. We all need information, and I understand it will be supplied by the Department of State. There is information on the precise point to which the Senator calls attention, and that is as to the number of the forces on both sides. I understand on the side of the insurgents it has latterly very much diminished; and I have been told that they are now little more than guerrilleros, and that the war they are carrying on is little more than a guerrilla contest,—that they are not in possession of any town or considerable place. Such is my information.

Mr. Sumner. I understand they have the government that is in a camp. With regard to that the Senator knows as well as I; but that brings us back again to the necessity of information.

Mr. Sumner. I think there is no evidence that there is a legislative body; and I must say I await with great anxiety the evidence of their action on the subject of Slavery itself. What assurance have we that slavery will be terminated by these insurgents? Have they the will? Have they the power? I know the report that they have abolished slavery, but this report leaves much to be desired. I wish it to be authenticated and relieved from all doubt. It is said that there are two decrees,—one to be read at home, and another to be read abroad. Is this true? And even if not true, is there any assurance that the insurrectionists are able to make this decree good? But while I require the surrender of slavery from the insurrectionists, I make the same requirement of Spain. Why has this power delayed?

Mr. Sumner. I am not able to inform the Senator precisely on that point. I do know enough, however, to satisfy me that Spain is a laggard on this question; and if my voice could reach her now, it would plead with her to be quick, to make haste to abolish slavery, not only in Cuba, but in Porto Rico. Its continued existence is a shame, and it should cease.

I have no disposition to go into this subject at length. There is, however, one other remark that the Senator from Wisconsin made to which I shall be justified in replying. He alludes to the case of the Hornet, and the proceedings against that vessel.[190] It is not for me now to vindicate those proceedings. They may have been proper under the statute, or may not; but it is very clear to me that the cases of the Hornet and the Spanish gun-boats are plainly distinguishable, and, if the Senate will pardon me one moment, I will make the distinction, I think, perfectly apparent. We all know that two or three or four or a dozen persons may levy war against the Government, may levy war against the king. A traitor levies war against the king. The king, when he proceeds against the traitor, does not levy war. He simply proceeds in the exercise of his executive functions in order to establish his authority. And in the spirit of this illustration I am disposed to believe that the United States were perfectly justifiable, even under this statute, in arresting the Hornet; but they would not be justifiable in arresting the Spanish gun-boats. The Hornet was levying war against Spain, and therefore subject to arrest. The gun-boats are levying no war, simply because the insurrection against which they are to be used has not reached the condition of war.

Mr. Sumner. Mr. President, I do not regard it as a question of neutrality. Until the belligerence of these people is recognized, they are not of themselves a power, they are not a people. Therefore there can be no neutrality on the part of our Government between Spain and her revolted subjects, until they come up to the condition of a people. They have not reached that point; and therefore I submit that there is at this moment no question of neutrality, and that the argument of the Senator in that respect was inapplicable. When the belligerence of the insurgents is recognized there will be a case for neutrality, and not before.

ADMISSION OF VIRGINIA TO REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS.

I am assured that there are resolutions of public meetings in different parts of Virginia, that there are papers, letters, communications, all tending to throw light on the actual condition of things in that State, which in the course of a short time, of a few days at furthest, will be presented to the Senate. Under these circumstances, I submit most respectfully, and without preferring any request with reference to myself, that the measure should be allowed to go over for a few days, perhaps for a week, till Monday next, and that it then should be taken up and proceeded with to the end. My object is, that, when the Senate acts on this important measure, it may act wisely, with adequate knowledge, and so that hereafter it may have no occasion to regret its conclusion. How many are there now, Sir, who, on the information in our papers to-day, would not recall the vote by which Tennessee was declared entitled to her place as a State! You, Sir, have read that report signed by the Representatives of Tennessee, and by her honored Senator here on my right [Mr. Brownlow]. From that you will see the condition of things in that State at this moment. Is there not a lesson, Sir, in that condition of things? Does it not teach us to be cautious before we commit this great State of Virginia back to the hands of the people that have swayed it in war against the National Government? Sir, this is a great responsibility. I am anxious that the Senate should exercise it only after adequate knowledge and inquiry. I do not believe that they have the means at this moment of coming to a proper determination.

Mr. President,—It seems to me that this discussion to-day tends irresistibly to one conclusion,—that the Senate is not now prepared to act. I do not say that it will not be prepared in one, two, or three days, or in a week; but it is not now prepared to act. Not a Senator has spoken, either on one side or the other, who has not made points of law, some of them presented for the first time in this Chamber. Hardly a Senator has spoken who has not presented questions of fact. How are we to determine these? Time is essential. We must be able to look into the papers, to examine the evidence, and, if my friend will pardon me, to examine also the law, to see whether the conclusion on which he stands so firmly is one on which the Senate can plant itself forevermore. The Senator must bear in mind that what we do now with reference to Virginia we do permanently and irrepealably, and that we affect the interests of that great State, and I submit also the safety of a large portion of its population. Sir, I am not willing to go forward in haste and in ignorance to deal with so great a question. Let us consider it, let us approach it carefully, and give to it something of that attention which the grandeur of the interest involved requires.

I think, therefore, the suggestion of my colleague, that this matter be postponed for several days, is proper; it is only according to the ordinary course of business of the Senate, and it is sustained by manifest reason in this particular case. I should prefer that the postponement were till next Monday, and I will be precise in assigning my reason. It is nothing personal to myself. My friend from New York said, or intimated, that, if the Senator from Massachusetts wished to be accommodated, he would be ready, of course, to consent to gratify him. Now I would not have it placed on that ground; I present it as a question of business; and I, as a Senator interested in the decision of this business, wish to have time to peruse these papers and to obtain that knowledge which will enable me to decide ultimately on the case. I have not now the knowledge that I desire with reference to the actual condition of things in Virginia. I am assured by those in whom I place confidence that in the course of a few days that evidence will be forthcoming. Will not the Senate receive it? Will it press hastily, heedlessly, recklessly, to a conclusion, which, when reached, it may hereafter find occasion to regret? Let us, Sir, so act that we shall have hereafter no regrets; let us so act that the people of Virginia hereafter may be safe, and that they may express their gratitude to the Congress of the United States which has helped to protect them.

The Senator from Nevada said, that, if we oppose the present bill, we sacrifice the Legislature of the State. I suggest to that Senator, that, if we do not oppose this bill, we sacrifice the people of the State. What, Sir, is a Legislature chosen as this recent Legislature has been chosen in Virginia, composed of recent Rebels still filled and seething with that old Rebel fire,—what is that Legislature in the scale, compared with the safety of that great people? Sir, I put in one scale the welfare of the State of Virginia, the future security of its large population, historic and memorable in our annals, and in the other scale I put a Legislature composed of recent Rebels. To save that Legislature the Senator from Nevada presses forward to sacrifice the people of the State.

Mr. President,—I have but one word to say, and it is one of gratitude to the Senator from Indiana for the complete adhesion he now makes to a principle of Constitutional Law which I have no doubt is unassailable. The Congress of the United States will have forevermore the power to protect Reconstruction. No one of these States, by anything that it may do hereafter, can escape from that far-reaching power. I call it far-reaching: it will reach just as far as the endeavor to counteract it; it is coextensive with the Constitution itself. I have no doubt of it, and I am delighted that the distinguished Senator from Indiana has given to it the support of his authority.

While I feel so grateful to my friend from Indiana for what he has said on this point, he will allow me to express my dissent from another proposition of his. He says that we are now bound under our Reconstruction Acts to admit Virginia. I deny it.

Mr. Sumner. My answer to the Senator is found in the last section of the Act authorizing the submission, of the Constitutions of these States, as follows:—

What is the meaning of that? The whole case is brought before Congress for consideration. We are to look into it, and consider the circumstances under which these elections have taken place, and see whether we can justly give to them our approval. Is that vain language? Was it not introduced for a purpose? Was it merely for show? Was it for deception? Was it a cheat? No, Sir; it was there with a view to a practical result, to meet precisely the case now before the Senate,—that is, a seeming compliance with the requirements of our Reconstruction policy, but a failure in substance.

Now I will read what was in the bill of March 2, 1867, entitled “An Act to provide for the more efficient government of the Rebel States.”[192] It declares in the preamble that “it is necessary that peace and good order should be enforced in said States,”—strong language that!—“until loyal and republican State governments can be legally established.” That is what Congress is to require. To that end Congress must look into the circumstances of the case; it must consider what the condition of the people there is,—whether this new government is loyal, whether it is in the hands of loyal people. To that duty Congress is summoned by its very legislation; the duty is laid down in advance.

And so you may go through all these Reconstruction statutes, and you will find that under all of them the whole subject is brought back ultimately to the discretion of Congress. This whole subject now is in the discretion of Congress. I trust that Congress will exercise it so that life and liberty and property shall be safe.

Mr. President,—Has it come to this, that the loyal people of Virginia cannot be heard on this floor? that a petition presented by a member of this body, proceeding from them, is to have first the denunciation of the Senator from Nevada on my right [Mr. Nye], and then the denunciation of the Senator from Nevada on my left [Mr. Stewart]? Why are the loyal people of Virginia to be thus exposed? What have they done? Sir, in what respect is that petition open to exception? The Senator says it is disrespectful. To whom? To this body? To the other Chamber? To the President of the United States? To any branch of this Government? Not in the least. It is disrespectful, according to the Senator from Nevada, to the present Governor of Virginia, and he undertakes to state his case.

Now, Sir, I have nothing to say of the present Governor of Virginia. I am told that he is on this floor; but I have not the honor of his acquaintance, and I know very little about him. I make no allegation, no suggestion, with regard to his former course. He may have been as sound always as the Senator from Nevada himself; but the petitioners from Virginia say the contrary. They are so circumstanced as to know more about him than the Senator from Nevada, or than myself; and they are so circumstanced as to have a great stake in his future conduct. Thus circumstanced, they send their respectful petition to this Chamber, asking a hearing; and what is the answer? Denunciation from one Senator of Nevada echoed by denunciation from the other Senator of Nevada. The voice of Nevada on this occasion is united, it is one, to denounce a loyal petition from Virginia.

Was I not right in presenting the petition? Shall these people be unheard? The Committee which the Senator represents, led by the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Trumbull], and now led by himself, are pressing this measure to a precipitate conclusion. These petitioners, having this great interest in the result, ask for a hearing. Several days ago I presumed, respectfully, deferentially, to ask that this measure should be postponed a few days in order to give an opportunity for such a hearing. I was refused. The Senator from Nevada would not consent, and with the assistance of Democrats he crowds this measure forward. Sir, it is natural, allow me to say, that one acting in this new conjunction should trifle with the right of petition. When one begins to act with such allies, I can well imagine that he loses something of his original devotion to the great fundamental principles of our Government.

Something was said by my friend, the other Senator from Nevada [Mr. Nye], on another passage of the petition, referring to a distinguished colleague of my own. Why, Sir, that very passage furnishes testimony against the cause represented by the Senator from Nevada. It shows how little to be trusted are these men. It shows the game of treachery which they have undertaken. It shows how they are intending to press this measure through Congress so as to obtain for Virginia the independence of a State. Are you ready for that conclusion? Are you ready to part with this great control which yet remains to Congress, through which security may be maintained for the rights of all?

Something has been said by different Senators of plighted faith. Sir, there is a faith that is plighted, and by that I will stand, God willing, to the end. It is nothing less than this: to secure the rights of all, without distinction of color, in the State of Virginia. When I can secure those rights, when I can see that they are firmly established beyond the reach of fraud, beyond the violence of opposition, then I am willing that that State shall again assume its independent position. But until then I say, Wait! In the name of Justice, in the name of Liberty, for the sake of Human Rights, I entreat the Senate to wait.