« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
duties of such offices; but take care, be sure, you give them to friends who will support you sincerely, honestly, and vigorously in the war being waged against you;" and the honorable Senator from Nevada to-day seemed to talk as if there was such a war. He knows more about the secrets of the Republican camp than I do. He ought to know all about that fact. He says, "Give us a platform and we can fight." Whom is the honorable Senator going to fight? I thought from what I heard in this Chamber that the Democratic party was dead and buried; we have heard that often enough. Surely you are not preparing a platform now to fight this dead party. Then it must be a platform to be used in this war between the President and Congress; and as to the side on which my friend from Nevada is in that fight, a doubt was intimated by my honorable friend from Wisconsin.
A word more on the subject before the Senate, in reference to the question of justice and propriety. You should remember that I am speaking impartially in reference to this matter. I have no interest in it whatever as a party man; but I ask you as a matter of justice, should not the President have the privilege of surrounding himself with a few friends? From what I have heard of the appointees of the former President of the United States, very few of them are the friends, as I suppose, of the present Executive. Now, would it not be just, would it not be magnanimous on the part of this great party, that is going to make war on the President, if it is going to make war, to give him the privilege of selecting a few friends to be around him? Certainly it is usual to allow a dying man to be surrounded by a few friends to comfort him in his dying moments. If the President be so weak that he has not one per cent. of the party that elected him as you say, can you not afford to let him take a few, of that one per cent. to take counsel with, and to comfort him in his affliction?
Senate. All I have to say upon that (not feeling much interest in it as a party man or personally) is simply that it has not been done from the foundation of the Government up to the present time, under any Administration, however hotly war has waged between Congress and the President of the United States. When the President of the United States was a Whig, a Democratic Senate and House of Representatives never attempted to take from him this power of removal from office as it has existed ever since the foundation of the Government. When your President was a Democrat and your Congress Whig, they never attempted to deprive him of this power.
Let me ask gentlemen, what is the great reason for doing it now? If amid the hot conflicts of party in former days it was not found necessary thus to stigmatize the President of the United States, (for it is nothing but an attempted stigma upon him,) what great public emergency demands it at this late hour? Do you dare question the actions of your own President? When I questioned some of the acts of the late President of the United States, I heard the epithets "copperhead" and "traitor" rolling thick and fast wherever I went. Only two or three brief years ago if any man questioned the infallibility of the acts of Abraham Lincoln, if he had not one, two, or three plates of copper upon his head it was because the tongue of slander could not place it there. But now, sir, having a President of your own election, of your own choice, you attempt to deprive him of the power which has been heretofore admitted to belong to the Executive from the foundation of the Government. For myself I feel no interest in it as a party man. I have yet to find that the present Executive of the United States has appointed the first Democrat to office; and let me take occasion to say that while I consider it a pleasure and a pride to be the personal friend of the President of the United States, and while I approve and indorse fully every constitutional and patriotic effort that he has made to restore the harmony of this country, and again to cause us to be a happy and a united people, I am looking for my party to no crumbs that fall from the presidential table. Neither, sir, is the Democratic party looking for those crumbs; they did not vote for him; they have no right to demand his offices; and they do not demand them; but they claim the right, and it gives them pleasure, when he acts nobly and patriotically and manfully for the good of the whole country, to forget the fact that they did not vote for him, and to rally to his support; and if his hands at any time shall fall down, they will help to raise them up, if votes and counsel can help to raise them up. They have the harmony of the country, the peace of the country, the restoration of friendly relations between the different States more at heart than they have party triumph. Nay, sir, leave it, this day, to that good old party which launched this ship of state on the billows, to be out of office for four, eight, or twenty years, and to stay out, upon the condition of the restored Union under the Constitution as our fathers made it; place before them the alternative of restoring the Union which our fathers framed, or of their coming into power and having this country continually distracted, with eleven States kept out of the Union, and they would retire to the quietude of private life and rejoice that the flag of their country once more waved from ocean to ocean, and from lake to gulf, over a united, happy, and prosperous people.
It is a mistake when gentlemen suppose that the members of the Democratic party, in giving such support as they do to the measures and policy of this Administration, are actuated by party considerations, with a view of taking their President away from them, or with a view of getting their offices. Sir, we do not claim their offices. If we dared say anything to the President of the United States, we would say to him, "Give your offices to the men who voted for you and who sustain your policy, provided they are best qualified to discharge the
Why, sir, look at the history of removals in this country. When John Adams came into office there was no occasion for any removal of appointees under General Washington's Administration; but when Thomas Jefferson came into office there was some occasion for them, because then all the offices were filled by persons opposed to a majority of the people of the United States. Mr. Jefferson made but few removals, comparatively few. I believe he removed no man simply because he had voted against him, and no one for mere political cause alone unless the man removed from office had made himself particularly obnoxious by his abuse. There was no occasion for Mr. Madison, or Mr. Monroe, or John Quincy Adams to make many removals, because there was very little division of parties then, and yet they did all make some. When General Jackson came into power there was occasion again because the offices were mainly filled by those who were opposed to him, and yet that Administration which has been held up as a model Administration for proscription made but a little over six hundred removals in eight years, and there were then about eight thousand postmasters in the country besides thousands of other officers. Now, even if Congress is disposed to take from the President of the United States the appointing power, as I admit it has the right to do in a great many instances, by giving the appointment to the Supreme Court or to the heads of Departments, still it would be nothing but justice to leave to the President of the United States the power to appoint a number of his friends to office.
Why are gentlemen alarmed, let me ask? Why should they be alarmed? Why should they entertain the idea that the present President of the United States is going to pervert this power of removal to a bad purpose? Is he not surrounded by the "divine Stanton" and such men? Has he not Mr. Seward for an adviser? Are not all his present advisers men whom you have indorsed over and over again? Have you not confidence in your President's advisers? Certainly they are not going to make
any appointment to injure you. Certainly they will not countenance any appointments in favor of the Democratic party. Sir, let me tell you, that it would take more faith than it requires to remove mountains to cause me to believe that the present Secretary of State of the United States, who so long has fought the Democratic party, and who, by the by, I consider the cause of a great deal of the evil that has been brought upon this country, is going to forsake your standard and rally to the Democratic standard. He is going to do no such thing. But suppose he should, what then? Some few men might follow; but I march under no captains manufactured out of "divine Stantons" and bell-ringing Sewards, and other men that I might name. You have them. You have got to keep them. You need not expect to get clear of them. Make war upon them if you choose, because in making war upon the President of the United States you will make war upon his Cabinet.
The Democratic party will not be driven from their support of the Chief Magistrate of the United States, whom they believe to be patriotic, and who in their judgment means well, though he may be surrounded by men who have warred upon that party all their lives, and whom the Democratic party have always fought; but they will support him in every act that they believe right, and in giving that support they are not animated or governed by any mere party considerations, but it is from a love of country and devotion to the country, and because they believe that his policy will conduce more to the interests of the country than your policy will. Although I know I differ with gentlemen on this floor who say they are so triumphantly strong in this country, I believe today that the Democratic party numbers more than one half of the constitutional voters of the United States in the States which never seceded; and, sir, now that your bayonets are removed from the polls, now that men can vote freely and act freely, we will hang our banner on the outer wall, and give it to the god-storms, the tempest, and the breeze, and we are not afraid to meet the united hosts of the Republi can party in the next presidential election. At the same time, sir, Andrew Johnson may-and that is what you are afraid of-Andrew John son may, if he acts rightly, not through the action of the Democratic party alone, but by the almost spontaneous action of the Ameri can people, become the next President of the United States. If he acts constitutionally, settles these great questions which are now disturbing the nation, settles them peaceably, gives back to the country a restored Union and a restored Constitution, the grateful hearts of hundreds of thousands and millions of American voters may so swell that they may say he deserves yet further honors at their hands; and if the American people will it neither Congress nor the Republican party can prevent it.
Mr. STEWART. Mr. President, my friend from Wisconsin [Mr. Howe] did not state my position quite fairly, nor exactly as I put it. He stated that I was waiting to see whether I could serve the Lord before I broke with his adversary. Well, that really looks like a manifestation of egotism on his part, as if he and the Lord were on intimate terms, so that he can say that he is on the Lord's side. But I beg leave to say that I do not exactly occupy that position. I believe that it is pretty well kuown that I am not much afraid to brea.: with anybody, that I do not watch the President to see how he is going. I mean on all questions to consult my best judgment, and I am ready at any moment to break with the President or anybody else on principle, if he deserts principle. Now I choose to state my position for myself. The President has attempted reconstruction; he has reared a kind of policy; I as a member of the Senate do not propose to aid in destroying it until I have got some materials together whereby to build a better house. Until I have collected the materials I do not propose to go to work tearing down and destroying. It may be impossible for Congress
So the laws of the seas from the time of Oleron are unwritten laws, and yet are laws of nations. For seventy-nine years we have been expounding our Constitution and system of government. It has been expounded by those who framed it. It was not possible to put in form of words every consideration that lay in and about the instrument, for then it would have been more extended than the Pandects of Justinian. It was intended for a Constitution to be built upon, construed, and has been construed by those who framed it. It has been determined that there are classes of officers, for instance, judges of the Supreme Court, appointed during good behavior who can only for misbehavior be ejected; a person appointed regularly to the military service under our system can be removed, if in the Army, by an Army court-martial; if in the Navy, by a naval court-martial that has tried and adjudged him. This has grown to be law, and is law. The case of Marbury vs. Madison, if I remember aright, was the case of a justice of the peace, appointed in this District; whose terin was fixed for five years by law. That is within the province of legislation; but there are a class of officers who are not within the province of legislation, and after all their administration belongs to the executive department of the Government. Legislation belongs to us as much as judgment belongs to the Supreme Court. We were not made to make officers. We are merely advisers of the President with regard to a class of officers, and not necessarily all officers, not inferior officers. In this legislation we are indirectly undertaking to usurp the functions of the executive head of the Government, whose business it is to understand these things by himself and through those whom he is authorized to surround himself with. We are usurping his authority; we have not the legitimate power to do what is here proposed; and it is against the policy by which the foundation of this Government was laid.
to construct a better policy; and if so, it is not the part of wisdom and justice on our part to destroy all that he has done.
I stated that the object of this amendment was undoubtedly to prevent the President from using the patronage of the Government to sustain his policy. If his policy is abandoned, or if we have a better one, I do not think there is anything so terrible in this law. If we have got a better policy that we desire to subserve, if we have the ability to build a better plan of reconstruction, it is our duty to use all constitutional power to make that successful; but if we have not, and do not succeed in getting it, we had better not pass any laws which shall embarrass the President in carrying out his policy. I want the States reconstructed; I want the Union preserved; and I believe that is the wish of the American people, and if Congress is incapacitated to do that, then I say we should throw no obstruction in the way of the President using his patronage and power to reconstruct in his way. But I stated at the same time that I believed Congress would be able to construct a policy which would be better than the President's; and when we have done that, I still hope the President will go with Congress.
Congress, after it has sufficiently deliberated, will, I believe, produce a plan, but until that is accomplished no harm can be done from delaying this matter; because Congress will be in session, and we shall have all the power in our hands. I say we should not be led astray on this side issue which is calculated to distract, which is giving us additional weight to carry, until we shall have arranged our plan of action, and then there may be no need of any conflict with the President. We may then be in harmony, and the great Union party may go on again without trouble. The President has not in the matter of appointments gone so far as to alienate himself from Congress. We have rejected very few of his appointments; we have confirmed nearly all. I believe we have not rejected more than the usual proportion. There is as yet no violent contest on this subject. We are here able to reject any improper appointment that he can make. We are going to stay here for some time, until we agree on some plan of action. Then, if there shall be trouble in carrying out that plan, let us use our constitutional power. My position is, that I am willing to break with any man who breaks with principle; but I am unwilling to tear down what another man has done until I have some evidence that I can do better, until I am prepared to do better.
Mr. McDOUGALL. Mr. President, I do not rise with the hope that I can add to the information of Senators on this subject. I cannot make the complement to the argument of the Senator from Vermont for the reason of its exceeding fullness; I cannot add to the learning that has been bestowed; but I choose to state my particular objections in my own way, briefly.
In the first place the amendment, the subject properly of discussion, is not germane to the bill; and the rule has been, and it is a good rule, that an appropriation bill should not be charged with extraneous matter. I have heard it maintained very earnestly always by the Senator from Ohio, who has been chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means of the other House, and now represents the Finance Committee, I believe. It is a bad prac tice, against sound policy; but that is not my gravest objection. The most difficult subject that was before the men who sat in council in 1787 was how to balance the powers of the Government, and those wise men, our ancestry, wiser than we, drew from the wells of old antiquity, they drew from the modern ages, and particularly the problem was how to balance the various powers of Government, and they designed as a policy that the three departments of Government should be each independent of the other, the executive, legislative, and judicial.
Now, all laws are not written. The common law is what is called the unwritten law.
This kind of legislation is itself in its character revolutionary. It is breaking up the established order of things for a mere temporary purpose. There is no disguising the underlying motive for this movement; it is patent. That from it must spring evil consequences is indubitable. We ought to live as a people that should endure through centuries, and why handle our institutions as things of a day? This is one of that class of movements, and I trust it will not meet the favorable consideration of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. CLARK in the chair.) The question is, Will the Senate reconsider the vote agreeing to the amendment?
Mr. SHERMAN called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas 21, nays 18; as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Delos R. Ashley, Boyer, Coffroth, Dawson, Delano. Denison, Eldridge, Finck, Glossbrenner, Grider, Griswold, Aaron Harding. James R. Hubbell, Kerr, Latham, Le Blond, Marshall, Newell, Niblack, Radford, Samuel J. Randall, William H. Randall, Raymond, Rogers, Shanklin, Sitgreaves, Taylor, Thornton, and Whaley-29.
NAYS-Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Anderson, James M. Ashley, Baker, Baldwin, Baxter, Beaman, Benjamin, Bidwell. Bingham, Boutwell, Bromwell, Broomall, Buckland, Reader W. Clarke, Conkling, Cook, Cullom, Deming, Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Dumont, Eckley, Eliot, Farnsworth, Ferry, Garfield, Abner C. Harding, Hart, Henderson, Holmes, Hooper, Asabel W. Hubbard, Jenckes, Julian, Kasson, Ketcham, Laflin, William Lawrence, Longyear, Lynch, McClurg, McKee, McRuer, Mercur, Miller, Morrill, Morris, Myers, O'Neill, Paine, Perham, Pike, Plants, John H. Rice, Rollins, Sawyer, Schenck, Scofield, Stevens, Francis Thomas, Trowbridge, Upson, Van Aernam, Warner, Elihu B. Washburne, Henry D. Washburn, William B. Washburn, Welker, Williams, James F. Wilson, Windom, and Woodbridge-76.
NOT VOTING-Messrs, Ancona, Banks, Barker, Bergen, Blaine, Blow, Brandegee, Bundy, Chanler, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Culver, Darling, Davis, Dawes, Defrees, Dodge, Eggleston, Farquhar, Goodyear, Grinnell, Hale, Harris, Hayes, Higby, Hill, Hogan, Hotchkiss, Chester D. Hubbard, Demas Hubbard John H. Hubbard, Edwin N. Hubbell, Hulburd, James Humphrey, James M. Humphrey, Ingersoll, Johnson, Jones, Kelley, Kelso, Kuykendall, George V. Lawrence, Loan, Marston, Marvin, McCullough, McIndoe, Moorhead, Moulton, Nicholson, Noell, Orth, Patterson, Phelps, Pomeroy, Price, Alexander H. Rice, Ritter, Ross, Rousseau, Shellabarger, Sloan, Smith, Spalding, Starr. Stilwell, Strouse, Taber, Thayer, John L. Thomas, Trimble. Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Ward, Wentworth, Stephen F. Wilson, Winfield, and Wright-78.
So the motion to lay on the table was not agreed to.
The resolution was then adopted.
Mr. JULIAN moved to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was adopted; and also
moved that the motion to reconsider be laid tion embrace the further inquiry, how many
of the family occupy positions.
The latter motion was agreed to.
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT IN VIRGINIA.
Mr. SMITH. If we can arrive at the fact
Mr. FARNSWORTH. I like the object of
Mr. SMITH. I will accept that—and "by whom recommended;" and I demand the previous question.
Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio, introduced a bill regulating the time and place for holding the circuit court of the United States in the district of Virginia, and for other purposes which was read a first and second time, ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the
Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio, demanded the previous question on the passage of the bill.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I hope now that the Chief Justice will perform his duty, and not try to place the blame on the President.
The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered; and under the operation thereof the bill passed.
Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio, moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved to lay that motion on the table. The latter motion was agreed to.
EMPLOYÉS IN THE DEPARTMENTS.
Mr. SMITH. I did not hear the State of Kentucky called, being occupied at the time, and I ask leave to introduce the following resolution :
Resolved. That the Secretary of State, Secretary of War, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of the Navy, Secretary of the Interior, Postmaster General, and Attorney General be requested to report to the House the number of clerks, male and female, now in their respective Departments, from which States they were appointed, and what was their occupation before appointment.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. I object.
The SPEAKER. This resolution being a call for executive information it requires unanimous consent.
Mr. SMITH. I ask the gentleman to withdraw it.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. If the gentleman will look in the Blue Book he will find all he wants.
Mr. SMITH. I wish to make this statement: it was but a few days ago that I saw the recommendation of a man who had just come out of the rebel army for appointment in some of the Departments, and but for the fact that he could not take the oath would have been there I understand there are efficient, capable, good men, who wish appointments who have served their country, who have one arm or one leg, who desire positions, while there. are those who have never been in the service at all who have obtained appointments. I wish to ascertain and have the country know these facts, and therefore I introduce this resolution. I wish to see men who are deserving rewarded by the Government they have served. That is all the object I have in introducing this resolution, and I hope the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. FARNSWORTH] will withdraw his objection and let the resolution be passed.
The SPEAKER. The Chair understands that the gentleman from Illinois withdraws his objection. Is there unanimous consent to the introduction of the resolution?
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I suggest that the word "requested" be changed to "directed." Mr. SMITH. I have no objection. I supposed the word "requested" would bring the information.
The SPEAKER. The usage of the House is, where information is desired of the President to use the word "requested," but where it applies to Cabinet ministers to use the word "directed."
Should not that be in
Mr. MERCUR. I suggest to add to the
Mr. SMITH. I do not understand that to be the case, but I have no objection to the amendment being made.
Mr. MORRIS. I suggest that the resolu
Mr. RADFORD. I call for the reading of the resolution as modified.
The resolution, as modified, was read, as follows:
Resolved, That the Secretary of State, the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of the Interior, the Postmaster General, and the Attorney General be directed to report the number of clerks, male and female, now in their respective Departments, from which States they were appointed, and what was their occupation before appointment; and also, the names, number, and residences, if any, of such as have been in the late rebel army, and by whom the latter class were recommended for appointment.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Will those copies be taken from the number which members receive? There is a standing order as to the number of copies which shall be printed. I should like to know if these copies are to come out of that number. I have no objection to the resolution. I think the reporters should have copies of these bills and resolutions, but it should be in addition to the regular number printed.
Mr. CLARKE, of Ohio. Under the standing rule a sufficient number of copies is printed to supply what is called for by this resolution.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. It may be so in some instances, but I think the resolution had better be modified so as to provide for the printing of an additional number of copies.
Mr. CLARKE, of Ohio. There is no need of increasing the number. There is a sufficient number printed to supply this demand. I move the previous question.
The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered; and under the operation thereof the resolution was adopted.
instructed to inquire into the expediency of remov ing the Department of Agriculture to one of the Western States, and that said committee report by bill or otherwise.
TRANSFER OF AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT.
Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio, submitted the following resolution, upon which he demanded the previous question:
Resolved, That the Committee on Agriculture be
The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered; and under the operation thereof the resolution was agreed to.
PRINTING OF SMITHSONIAN REPORT.
Mr. GARFIELD submitted the following resolution; which was read and referred, under the law, to the Committee on Printing:
Resolved, That five thousand extra copies of the Report of the Smithsonian Institution be printed, two thousand for the Institution and three thousand for the use of the members of the House.
DISTRIBUTION OF ORDNANCE.
Mr. SCHENCK introduced a joint resolution relating to the distribution of ordance and ordnance stores among the States; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.
Mr. BOYER submitted the following pream ble and resolution, upon which he demanded the previous question, and called for the yeas and nays:
Whereas the joint committee of fifteen on reconstruction reported on the 30th ultimo, after the arduous labors of five months' continuous incubation, a well-matured plan of "how not to do it," in which they have fully met the expectations of the country, which is as much as ought ordinarily to be demanded of any committee: Therefore,
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring,) That said joint committee be discharged. Mr. BROMWELL. I move to lay that resolution on the table.
Mr. LE BLOND. I demand the yeas and nays on that motion.
yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 100, nays 24, not voting 59; as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Anderson, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Baker, Baldwin, Banks, Baxter, Beaman, Benjamin, Bidwell, Bingham, Blow, Boutwell, Bromwell, Broomall, Reader W. Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Conkling, Cook, Cullom, Defrees, Deming, Dixon, Dodge, Donnelly, Driggs, Dumont, Eckley, Eliot, Farnsworth, Ferry, Garfield, Griswold, Abner C. Harding, Hart, Henderson, Holmes, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, James Humphrey, Jenckes, Julian, Kasson, Kelley, Kelso, Ketcham, Laflin, Latham, George V. Lawrence, William Lawrence, Loan, Longyear, Lynch, MeClurg, McIndoe, McKee, McRuer, Mercur, Miller, Morrill, Morris, Moulton, Myers, O'Neill, Orth, Paine, Perham, Pike, Plants, William H. Randall, Raymond, John H. Rice, Rollins, Sawyer, Schenck, Scofield, Shellabarger, Spalding, Stevens, Stilwell, Francis Thomas, John L. Thomas, Trowbridge, Upson, Vau Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Warner, Elihu B. Washburne, Henry D. Washburn, William B. Washburn, Welker, Whaley, Williams, James F. Wilson, Windom, and Woodbridge-100.
NAYS-Messrs. Boyer, Coffroth, Dawson, Denison, Eldridge, Finck, Glossbrenner, Grider. Aaron Harding, Harris, Kerr, Le Blond, Marshall, Niblack, Radford, Samuel J. Randall, Ritter, Rogers, Shanklin, Sitgreaves, Strouse, Taylor, Thornton, and Winfield-24.
NOT VOTING-Messrs. Ancona, Barker, Bergen, Blaine, Brandegee, Buckland, Bundy, Chanler, Culver, Darling, Davis, Dawes, Delano, Eggleston, FarHogan, Hooper, Chester D. Hubbard, Demas Hab quhar, Goodyear, Grinnell, Hale, Hayes, Higby, Hill, bard, John H. Hubbard, Edwin N. Hubbell, James R. Hubbell, Hulburd, James M. Humphrey, Ingersoll, Johnson, Jones, Kuykendall, Marston, Marvin, McCullough, Moorhead, Newell, Nicholson, Noell Patterson, Phelps, Pomeroy, Price, Alexander H Rice, Ross, Rousseau, Sloan, Smith, Starr, Taber, Thayer, Trimble, Robert T. Van Horn, Ward, Went worth, Stephen F. Wilson, and Wright-59.
So the resolution was laid on the table. DISTRIBUTION OF ASSASSINATION REWARDS. Mr. KELLEY submitted the following res olution:
Resolved, That the Committee of Claims be instructed to inquire into the fairness and propriety of the award of the rewards offered for the arrest of Jefferson Davis and the conspirators to murder President Lincoln; and that the Committee on Appropriations be instructed to take no action on the same until the Committee of Claims shall have reported the result of their investigations and the House taken action thereon.
Mr. GARFIELD. Will the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. KELLEY] explain the neces sity for the passage of such a resolution as this? Mr. KELLEY. I will very gladly give an explanation of it if the House will permit.
The SPEAKER. If objection be made the resolution will go over under the rule if it gives rise to debate.
Mr. KELLEY. An award has been made, which has already given rise to many objec tions. And as the Committee on Appropriations have been ordered to prepare a bill making an appropriation
Mr. KASSON. I think the House has made no such order.
Mr. KELLEY. We have passed a resolution instructing the Committee on Appropriations on that subject.
Mr. KASSON. The resolution was simply referred. I would ask the gentleman if he knows of any action of the Committee on Appropriations which makes it necessary to ask the House to enjoin the committee from early action.
Mr. KELLEY. This is intended merely to guard against the subject being acted on by the Committee on Appropriations before the Committee of Claims shall have inquired into the propriety of the award.
Mr. KASSON. The order of the House directing the Committee of Claims to inquire into the subject, I presume, would be sufficient for the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. KELLEY. Very well; I will modify my resolution by striking out that portion which relates to the Committee on Appropriations; and also substitute the word "distribution' for the word "award." It will then be a simple resolution instructing the Committee of Claims to inquire into the propriety of the distribution of the rewards.
levy tax or duty on cotton exported from the United States.
Mr. STEVENS. I call the previous question.
Mr. LE BLOND. If that joint resolution gives rise to debate, does it not go over under the rule?
Mr. FARNSWORTH. The Committee on Appropriations have the subject before them with a design to inquire into it. But we are not instructed to report any appropriation.
Mr. STEVENS. I think my colleague on the Committee on Appropriations [Mr. FARNSWORTH is mistaken. After the subject was referred to the committee suggestions were made that the subject should be investigated. And one day, when my colleague [Mr. FARNSWORTH] was not present, I believe, the committee agreed that we would postpone action upon it until some other committee shall have investigated it, if it should be brought before them.
Mr. KASSON. I hope this subject will go to the Committee of Claims.
Mr. KELLEY. The Committee of Claims, I think, is the proper committee to consider this subject; and therefore I now call the previous question.
The resolution was again read, as modified: Resolved, That the Committee of Claims be instructed to inquire into the fairness and propriety of the distribution of the rewards offered for the arrest of Jefferson Davis and the conspirators to murder President Lincoln.
The SPEAKER. If the previous question is not seconded, and debate arises on the joint resolution it would go over under the rule.
Mr. LE BLOND. Then we will filibuster a little.
On seconding the demand for the previous question there were-ayes 36, nocs 38; no quorum voting.
The SPEAKER, under the rules, ordered tellers; and appointed Mr. STEVENS, and Mr. RANDALL of Pennsylvania.
Mr. STEVENS. I want to modify my motion a little. I move that the resolution be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, with instructions to report within one week. I desire to add these instructions, because in the earlier part of the session a similar resolution was, on my motion, referred to that committee, from which we have never received a report on the subject.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I desire to say, in reply to what the gentleman has said, that the gentleman has had no such resolution referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, so far as my knowledge extends.
Mr. ELDRIDGE. Is this resolution debatable?
The SPEAKER. The morning hour has expired; and the resolution goes over until next Monday, unless the gentleman offers it in a modified form now.
Mr. STEVENS. I offer the resolution, to be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Pennsylvania asks consent, the morning hour having expired, to introduce a resolution.
Mr. LE BLOND. I object.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. I move to suspend the rules for the purpose of allowing the resolution to be introduced and referred.
Mr. LE BLOND. I demand the yeas and nays on the motion to suspend the rules.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I desire to ask, what is the present motion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? Does he propose to refer the resolution with any instructions?
Mr. STEVENS. I withdraw that part of the motion with regard to instructions.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. As there is now no proposition to refer with instructions, I hope the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LE BLOND will withdraw the call for the yeas and nays.
Mr. ELDRIDGE. I desire to know whether the resolution has not already been introduced, and whether it has not gone over under the rules.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. FARNSWORTH] has moved to suspend the rules, the morning hour having expired, for the purpose of proceeding to the consideration of the resolution, on which the gentleman from Pennsylvania does not desire action at the present time, but which he simply desires to have referred.
Mr. ELDRIDGE. Can the rules be sus
pended to allow the introduction of a resolution which has already been introduced and has gone over?
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Illinois moved to suspend the rules to bring the resolution before the House. That suspension would include the rule requiring the resolution to go over, as well as all other rules which may stand in the way of the consideration of the resolution.
Mr. LE BLOND. If this resolution is not to be reported back within a week, I am willing to withdraw my call for the yeas and nays. My chief object is to have these constitutional amendments postponed as long as possible, so as to preserve for as long a period as we can the principles of our Government from the hands of the radicals.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I have received and desire to lay before the House a letter from Hon. George Bancroft, who delivered the memorial address on Abraham Lincoln, together with some correspondence of Lord Russell. I desire that the whole shall be printed and referred to the joint committee on the memorial to President Lincoln. I think the House will be entertained and instructed by the reading of the correspondence; and I ask that it be read.
Several MEMBERS. Let us hear it.
Lord Russell to Mr. Adams.
CHESHAM PLACE, February 28, 1866. DEAR MR. ADAMS: I observe in the Daily News of yesterday extracts from a speech of Mr Bancroft delivered in the House of Representatives on the 12th instant.
In this speech Mr. Bancroft is represented to have said, referring to the breaking out of the civil war:
The British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs made haste to send word through the palaces of Europe that the great Republic was in its agony, that the Republic was no more, that a headstone was all that remained due by the law of nations to 'the late Union.'
As words pronounced on such an occasion and by so eminent a man as Mr. Bancroft may have an effect far beyond the injury which my personal character might suffer, I must request you to convey to Mr. Bancroft my denial of the truth of his allegations, and to refer him to facts of a totally opposite character.
Soon after the news of the resistance in arms of the southern States to the Government of the Union arrived in this country, a member of the House of Commons stated in his place that the bubble of republicanism had burst.
I replied in the same debate that the bubble of republicanism had not burst, and that if the curso of slavery still hung about the United States it was England who had made them the gift of the poisoned garment which was now their torment.
In fact I never had any doubt that whether the United States consented to separation or pursued the war to extremity the great western Republic would remain, happily for the world, a powerful and independent republic.
The authors of the Declaration of Independence in declaring for separation from Great Britain, after enumerating their complaints of her conduct, go on to say: "We must therefore acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.'
That we should be enemies in war is easily understood, but when we are at peace, why should we not
be friends, as the great men of the American Revolution intended us to be? If they, in the moment of separation and of war, looked forward to a period of peace and of friendship, why should we, more than three quarters of a century after these events, keep up sentiments of irritation aud hostility founded on a mistaken apprehension of facts, and tending to lay the foundation of permanent alienation, suspicion, and ill-will?
between Washington and New York being interrupted, yet the accounts which have reached them from some of her Majesty's consuls, coupled with what has appeared in the public prints, are sufficient to show that a civil war has broken out among the States which lately composed the American Union. Other nations have, therefore, to consider the light in which, with reference to that war, they are to regard the confederacy into which the southern States have united themselves; and it appears to her Majesty's Government that, looking at all the circumstances of the case, they cannot hesitate to admit that such confederacy is entitled to be considered as a belligerent, and, as such, invested with all the rights and prerogatives of a belligerent.
I have stated this to Lord Lyons in the dispatch of which I inclose a copy for your Excellency's information.
As Mr. Bancroft's speech is likely to have very extensive publicity, I reserve to myself the power of making public this letter at such time as I shall judge fit.
I remain, my dear Mr. Adams, your faithful servant, RUSSELL. P. S. I subjoin an extract of my speech on the 30th of May, 1851, as reported in Hansard's Debates.
Mr. Bancroft to Mr. Adams in reply. NEW YORK, March 23, 1866. MY DEAR MR. ADAMS: I have received from you, by Lord, Russell's desire, a copy of his letter to you of 28th February last, in which he denies the truth of certain allegations in my address to Congress on the 12th of the same month. The passage which he cites contains these three allegations: that as British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs he viewed this Republic as "the late Union;" that he sent this view of our country through the palaces of Europe; and that he made haste to do so. When Lord Russell calls to mind the authority for these statements, he must acknowledge them to be perfectly just and true.
On the 6th day of May, 1861, Lord John Russell, then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, wrote a dispatch to Lord Lyons, in which he describes the condition of America as "the disruption of a confederacy," and he further used these words: "Civil war has broken out between the several States of the late Union. The government of the southern portion has duly constituted itself. Her Majesty's Government do not wish you to make any mystery of that view." Here is irrefragable proof of my first allegation.
On the day on which the minister of the Queen thus wrote he addressed a dispatch to Lord Cowley, her Majesty's embassador at Paris, designating our Republic the States which lately composed the American Union:" "the late United States;""the late Union:" and he inclosed in that dispatch, for Lord Cowley's instruction, a copy of the above cited letter to Lord Lyons. Having thus ostentatiously communicated his view of our country as the late Union," he asked in return to be made acquainted with the views of the Imperial Government." My second allegation is therefore true in letter and in spirit.
That Lord John Russell, as Secretary of State, was in haste to do this, appears from hisnot having awaited the arrival of the American minisfer of Mr. Lincoln's appointment, and from those very letters of the 6th of May, 1861, to Lord Cowley and to Lord Lyons; for in those letters he confesses that he had not as yet "received from Lord Lyons any report of the state of affairs and of the prospects of the several parties;" but that on coming to the decision which was so momentous and unprecedented, he acted on the reports of "some cousuls" and "of the public prints."
It is true that twenty-four days after Lord John Russell had officially described our country as the disruption of a confederacy," "the late United States,' "the late Union," he reproved a member of the House of Commons for openly exulting "that the great republican bubble in America had burst;" and owned that the Republic had been for many years a great and free State:" but he uttered no expectation or hope of the restoration of our Union, and rather intimated that the Americans were "about to destroy cach other's happiness and freedom." Lord John, on that occasion, rightly attributed the rebellion to the "accursed institution of slavery," and confessed that England was the giver of "the poisoned garment;' that the former governments of Great Britain were "themselves to blame for the origin of the evil." But this confession must be interpreted by the light of his averments on the 6th of May, 1861, and by Lord Russell's later assertion, that the efforts of our country were but a contest for "empire."
In speaking to the American Congress of the life and character of Abraham Lincoln, it was my unavoidable duty to refer to the conduct of the British Government toward our country during his administration, for nothing so wounded his feelings or exercised his judgment or tried his fortitude.
I was asked to address the two Houses of our Congress, and those only. When I learned that the British minister at Washington was likely to be one of my hearers, I requested Mr. Seward to advise him not to be present; and through another friend I sent him a similar message, which he received and perfectly understood.
I need not recall words of ninety years ago to be persuaded that in peace America and the United Kingdom should be friends. I have a right to say this, for when in the public service I proved it by public acts; and as a private citizen I have never wished our Government to demand of a foreign Power anything but justice.
Pray send Lord Russell a copy of this letter, which he is at liberty to publish; and I consider myself equally at liberty to publish his letter, to which this is a reply.
I am ever, my dear Mr. Adams, very truly yours, GEORGE BANCROFT. North America, No. 3. Presented to Parliament, 1862, (LXII.)
Lord J. Russell to Earl Cowley. FOREIGN OFFICE, May 6, 1861. MY LORD: Although her Majesty's Government have received no dispatches from Lord Lyons by the mail which has just arrived, the communication
In making known to M. Thouvenal the opinion of her Majesty's Government on this point, your Excellency will add that you are instructed to call the attention of the French Government to the bearing which this unfortunate contest threatens to have on the rights and interests of neutral nations.
On the one hand, President Lincoln, in behalf of the northern portion of the late United States, has issued a proclamation declaratory of an intention to subject the ports ofthe southern portion of the late Union to a vigorous blockade; on the other hand, President Davis, on behalf of the southern portion of the late Union, has issued a proclamation declaratory of an intention to issue letters of marque for cruisers to be employed against the commerce of the North. In this state of things it appears to her Majesty's Government to be well deserving of the immediate consideration of all maritime powers, but more especially of France and Eugland, whether they should not take some steps to invite the contending parties to act upon the principles laid down in the second and third articles of the Declaration of Paris of 1856, which relates to the security of neutral property on the high seas.
The United States, as an entire Government, have not acceded to that declaration; but in practice they have, in their conventions with other Powers, adopted the second article, although admitting that without some such convention the rule was not one of universal application.
As regards the third article, in recent treaties concluded by the United States with South American republics, the principle adopted has been at variance with that laid down in the Declaration of Paris.
Your Excellency will remember that when it was proposed to the Government of the United States, in 1856, to adopt the whole of the Declaration of Paris, they in the first instance agreed to the second, third, and fourth proposals, but made a condition as to the first, that the other Powers should assent to extending the declaration, so as to exempt all private property whatever from capture on the high seas; but before any final decision was taken on this proposal, the Government of President Buchanan, which in the interval had come into power, withdrew the proposition altogether.
It seems to her Majesty's Government to be deserving of consideration, whether a joint endeavor should not now be made to obtain from each of the belligerents a formal recognition of both principles, as laid down in the Declaration of Paris, so that such principles shall be admitted by both, as they have been admitted by the Powers who made or acceded to the Declaration of Paris, henceforth to form part of the general law of nations.
Her Majesty's Government would be glad to be made acquainted with the views of the Imperial Government on this matter with as little delay as possible. J. RUSSELL.
I am, &c.,
Lord J. Russell to Lord Lyons.
MY LORD: Her Majesty's Government are disappointed in not having received from you by the mail which has just arrived any report of the state of affairs and of the prospects of the several parties, with reference to the issue of the struggle which appears unfortunately to have commenced between them; but the interruption of the communication between Washington and New York sufficiently explains the nonarrival of your dispatches.
The account, however, which her Majesty's consuls at different ports were enabled to forward by the packet, coincide in showing that, whatever may be the final result of what cannot now be designated otherwise than as the civil war which has broken out between the several States of the late Union, for the present at least those States have separated into distinct confederacies, and, as such, are carrying on war against each other.
The question for neutral nations to consider is, what is the character of the war; and whether it should be regarded as a war carried on between parties severally in a position to wage war, and to claim the rights and to perform the obligations attaching to belligerents?
deeply deplore the disruption of a Confederacy with which they have at all times sought to cultivate the most friendly relations; they view with the greatest apprehension and concern the misery and desolation in which that disruption threatens to involve the provinces now arrayed in arms against each other; but they feel that they cannot question the right of the southern States to claim to be recognized as a belligerent, and, as such, invested with all the rights and prerogatives of a belligerent.
I think it right to give your lordship this timely notice of the view taken by her Majesty's Government of the present state of affairs in North America, and her Majesty's Government do not wish you to make any mystery of that view.
I shall send your lordship, by an early opportunity, such further information on these matters as may be required for your guidance; at present I have only to add, that no expression of regret that you may employ at the present disastrous state of affairs will too strongly declare the feelings with which her Majesty's Government contemplate all the evils which cannot fail to result from it.
I am, &c.,
[Extract of Lord John Russell's speech in the House of Commons, May 30, 1861.]
My honorable friend, the member for the West Riding of Yorkshire, alluded the other night to one subject in a tone which I was very sorry to hear used by any one. My honorable friend said that "the great republican bubble in America had burst." Now, sir, I am proud to confess-I may be subject to correction-but for my part, when I find that a dark and tyrannical despotism has been abolished, and that people are likely to enjoy free government in its place, rejoice. It is my duty to represent her Majesty as friendly to all existing States; but if a despotic Government fall, and the people who are subject to it are likely to obtain better and freer Government, I cannot conceal that it gives me satisfaction and that I sympathize with them. But I own I have very different feelings when a great Republic, which has enjoyed for seventy or eighty years institutions under which the people have been free and happy, enters into a conflict in which that freedom and happiness is placed in jeopardy. I must confess the joy which I felt at the overthrow of some of the despotisms of Italy is counterbalanced by the pain which I experience at the events which have lately taken place in America. I admit that I have thought, and that I still think, that in this country we enjoy more real freedom than the United States have ever done. I admit, also, that the great founders of that Republic, wise and able men as they were, had not the materials at hand by which they could interpose, as we are able to do in this country, the curb and correction of reason in order to restrain the passionate outbursts of the popular will. Yet we cannot be blind to the fact that the Republic has been for many years a great and free State, exhibiting to the world the example of a people in the enjoyment of wealth, happiness, and freedom, and affording bright prospects of the progress and improvement of mankind. When I reflect that the reproaches which are cast by the States of the North upon the States of the South, and the resistance which they have called forth, have arisen from that accursed institution of slavery, I cannot but recollect also that with our great and glorious institutions we gave them that curse, and that ours were the hands from which they received that fatal gift of the poisoned garment which was flung around them from the first hour of their establishment. Therefore, I do not think it just or seemly that there should be among us anything like exultation at their discord, and still less that we should reproach them with an evil for the origin of which we are ourselves to blame. These are the feelings with which I heard the remarks of my honorable friend the other night, and I must say that I believe the sentiments which he expressed form an exception to the general impression in England. Indeed, I think nothing could be more honorable to our country than the prevailing pain and grief which have been occasioned by the prospect of that great and free people being about to rush into arms to destroy each other's happiness and freedom.
NEW YORK, May 3, 1866. SIR: Having, in conformity with the request of Congress through its joint committee, delivered before them a memorial address on Abraham Lincoln, and Earl Russell having written a letter to deny some of my allegations, I deem it but an act of justice to transmit to you a copy of Earl Russell's letter and of my reply, and of the documents on which my allegation and his denial are founded. I request you to lay these papers before the joint committee of Congress, and I leave them at their disposition. Very respectfully, yours,
GEORGE BANCROFT. To Hon. ELIHU B. WASHBURNE. of Illinois, Chairman on the part of the House of the Joint Committee of Congress, &c.