Transcriber’s Note: in the Index, only references within this volume are hyperlinked. All other volumes are available as Project Gutenberg ebooks. A list is given at the end.

Charles Sumner; his complete works, volume 19 (of 20)

Copyright, 1883,
BY
FRANCIS V. BALCH, Executor.

Copyright, 1900,
BY
LEE AND SHEPARD.

Statesman Edition.

Limited to One Thousand Copies.

Of which this is

Norwood Press:
Norwood, Mass., U.S.A.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME XX.

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: ITS PROPER NUMBER.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now mark the words, if you please,—