Sivut kuvina

qui Libertati non favet. Such is the terrible judgment. Again the Law speaks: Execrandus est, qui Libertati non favet: "Accursed is he who does not favor Liberty." This is the ancient voice of the Law, older than Constitution and Declaration of Independence, which must not be disobeyed.



FEBRUARY 18th, Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, reported the following resolution, which, at the request of Mr. Sumner, was read:

"Resolved, &c., That the United States do hereby recognize the Government of the State of Louisiana, inaugurated under and by the Convention which assembled on the 6th day of April, A. D. 1864, at the city of New Orleans, as the legitimate Government of the said State, and entitled to the guaranties and all other rights of a State Government under the Constitution of the United States."

The admission of the State, as here proposed, had the favor of President Lincoln. It was earnestly opposed by Mr. Sumner, as not republican in origin or form, and furnishing no security for the rights of colored persons.

February 23d, on motion of Mr. Trumbull, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution, when Mr. Sumner moved the following substitute :

"That neither the people nor the Legislature of any State, the people of which were declared to be in insurrection against the United States by the Proclamation of the President, dated August 16, 1861, shall hereafter elect Representatives or Senators to the Congress of the United States, until the President, by proclamation, shall have declared that armed hostility to the Government of the United States within such State has ceased, nor until the people of such State shall have adopted a Constitution of Government not repugnant to the Constitution and laws of the United States, nor until, by a law of Congress, such State shall have been declared to be entitled to representation in the Congress of the United States of America."

This was lost, - Yeas 8, Nays 29.

February 24th, Mr. Lane, of Kansas, moved that the resolution be made the special order for the next day at one o'clock. In the debate on this motion the following colloquy occurred.

MR. SUMNER. If we are to make any special order for to-morrow, I think it should be the bill which the Senate has most maturely considered, and on which it is most prepared to vote, known as the Railroad Bill, in charge of my friend from Michigan [Mr. CHANDLER]. The Senator from Illinois [Mr. TRUMBULL] came forward with his measure

MR. CONNESS. Will my friend permit me - I know he to appeal to him not to waste the fifteen minutes we have left in discussing the order of business, but let us take a vote? . . . . SEVERAL SENATORS (to Mr. SUMNER). MR. SUMNER. Senators say, "Give up." MR. CONNESS. We know that. [Laughter.]

Give up.

That is not my habit.

MR. LANE (of Kansas). Will the Senator from Massachusetts permit me to withdraw my motion?

MR. SUMNER. If the motion is withdrawn, I have nothing further to say. MR. LANE. I withdraw the motion.

The motion to postpone was not pressed, and the resolution came up in regular order. After an elaborate speech against it by Mr. Powell, of Kentucky, Mr. Howard, of Michigan, obtained the floor, when his colleague, Mr. Chandler, moved to proceed with the bill to regulate commerce among the States, known as the Railroad Bill. In the debate that ensued, Mr. Sumner spoke of the latter bill as "a reality," and called the resolution "a shadow." Mr. Doolittle, of Wisconsin, vindicated the resolution as "the great measure of this Congress," and said, "It is not for the Senator from Massachusetts, with all his boastful friendship for Freedom and free States, to join hands with the Senator from Kentucky, and undertake to prevent the recognition of the free State of Louisiana." In reply, Mr. Sumner said:

[ocr errors]


HIS measure, I say, Sir, is a shadow. So far as it is calculated to exercise any influence, it is to bring disaster. Sir, I do not stand here as a prophet, and I will not at this moment, on this incidental question, be carried into debate; but I warn the Senator from Wisconsin, as he loves Human Freedom, ay, Sir, as he represents a State dedicated to Freedom, to hesitate, before he throws his influence on the side of such a proposition, opening the way to an ominous future.

Sir, I am not disposed to go on, and yet there is one other remark of the Senator to which I must reply. The Senator insists constantly upon foisting an unconstitutional idea in the way of establishing Emancipation throughout this country. He says the vote of Louisiana is needed to the Constitutional Amendment. Sir, the vote of Louisiana is not needed; and when the Senator makes the assertion, he interposes an obstacle to the Amendment. Is he a friend to it? Why, then, interpose an obstacle by an untenable and erroneous interpretation of the Constitution? The Constitution declares that an Amendment shall become to all intents and purposes a part of the Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the States.

MR. DOOLITTLE. "When ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States."

MR. SUMNER. Very well, "when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States"; but if no Legislatures exist in States, will the Senator make that an excuse for avoiding the establishment of the Amendment? I will not recognize the Rebellion to such extent; I will not recognize the independence of the Rebel States, as the Senator does. I insist, Sir, that these States shall not control the National Government at this moment, in this great period of our history, and thwart the establishment of human freedom throughout the land.

After remarks from other Senators, the motion to take up the Railroad Bill was lost, Yeas 10, Nays 25. Mr. Henderson, of Missouri, made an elaborate speech in favor of the admission, claiming that its Constitution was republican in form, in the course of which the following colloquy occurred



MR. HENDERSON. The Senator from Kentucky thinks the Constitution of Louisiana is the offspring of military usurpation, but he does not say that the Constitution itself is antirepublican.



MR. SUMNER. Certainly.

MR. HENDERSON. In what particular? Mr. President, I have been in the Senate for nearly four years, and I believe now candidly that the Rebellion is about at an end, and, if there were no other evidence of it, that evidence would be presented to-night in the close alliance and affiliation of my friend from Massachusetts and my friend from Kentucky. Truly, the lion and the lamb have lain down together.

MR. JOHNSON (of Maryland). Who is the lion, and who is the lamb? MR. HENDERSON. That is for the gentlemen themselves to settle. [Laughter.] The Senator from Massachusetts says that these State Constitutions are not republican in form. Will he tell me in what respect?

MR. SUMNER. Because they do not follow out the principles of the Constitution of the United States.

MR. HENDERSON. I should like to know in what particular. The answer is a very general one, indeed. He refuses, then, to specify. The Senator can answer more particularly hereafter, if he chooses. He says these Constitutions do not follow the Constitution of the United States. I have looked over them, and I find no objection to them. The Senator from Massachusetts says the act of secession took the States out. In the name of sense, cannot the act of the loyal men bring them back?

MR. SUMNER. Does the Senator refer to me as having ever said that the act of secession took a State out?


MR. HENDERSON. I understand the Senator to claim that these States are in a territorial condition, that they are not States, that, by losing their State Governments in the act of secession, they lose their specific identity as States.

MR. SUMNER. I would rather the Senator should use my language than his own, when he undertakes to state my position. I have never said that any act of secession took a State out. I have always said just the contrary. No act of secession can take a State out of this Union. Whatever may be attempted, the State continues under the Constitution of the United States, subject to all its requirements and behests. The Government of the State is subverted by secession; the Senator does not recognize the existing Government as legal or constitutional, any more than I do. Where, then, is the difference between us? There is no Government which he or I recognize; but we do hold that the whole region, the whole territory, is under the Constitution, to be protected and governed by it.

MR. HENDERSON. The Senator, then, admits that the States are in the Union. Now I ask him if we can restore the Union without restoring State Governments in the seceded States.

MR. SUMNER. That is the desire I have most at heart. I wish to restore State Governments in those States.

« EdellinenJatka »