362 



CONGRESS, U. S. 



those opinions. As we look back over the his- 

 tory of the past, we see it. It marks every 

 furlong of this contest. Our own feebleness 

 of purpose, our own deference to fears and anx- 

 ieties, have prolonged the contest, and have cost 

 us hundreds of millions of dollars, and thou- 

 sands of lives. That is my judgment." 



A contest, as indicated in the preceding re- 

 marks, had arisen in the Senate upon the bill 

 reported by the committee. Some Senators 

 wanted a more stringent bill, whilst others 

 were satisfied with the report. 



Mr. Sumner, of Massachusetts, one of those 

 who desired a more stringent measure, spoke 

 of the report thus : "Mr. President, there is a 

 character in one of Dickens's novels, who says 

 to another, ' Take a glass of water, put into it 

 a little piece of orange peel, and then make 

 believe very hard and you will have a strong 

 drink.' Now, sir, I would apply these words 

 to the bill of the committee. It is like a glass 

 of water with a bit of orange peel in it, and if 

 you make believe very hard you may have a 

 strong bill. To my mind, it amounts to nothing. 

 It only plays with the subject. At a moment 

 when the life of our Republic is struck at, 

 Senators propose to proceed as if by an in- 

 dictment in a criminal court. I have, there- 

 fore, no sympathy with the bill. It is inade- 

 quate to the occasion. It is a perfect nonentity. 

 And yet, sir, I took part in raising the com- 

 mittee which has reported the bill. I remem- 

 ber well that my friend from Ohio (Mr. "Wade) 

 said, when we were considering whether that 

 committee should be raised, that confiscation 

 would be lost by it, and I replied to him at 

 once that he was mistaken, that confiscation 

 would be saved by it. Such was my opinion." 



Mr. Collamer, of Vermont, was brought to 

 his feet by this speech. He said: " I have been 

 perfectly silent upon this particular bill, willing 

 that the subject should be treated by all men 

 in their own way, according to their own tastes ; 

 but when I am appealed to by name, person- 

 ally, I suppose I am not at liberty to sit still. 

 Common courtesy to the honorable Senator will 

 not admit it, though he thinks that I am one 

 of a committee that helped to concoct a measure 

 like putting a piece of orange peel into a tum- 

 bler of water, for the purpose of deceiving and 

 duping Senators: addressing myself to their 

 faith to make them believe there was great 

 virtue in it, when I knew there was nothing 

 in it a sort of bread pill. He accuses me of 

 that, and calls that courtesy." 



Mr. Sumner replied: "The Senator misun- 

 derstands me when he says I attribute any such 

 motive to him." 



Mr. Collamer thus described the course taken 

 in the debate : "At almost every step in the 

 consideration of this subject, Senators have in- 

 dulged in terms of reproach to those who differ 

 with them in opinion terms of contumely 

 terms which impute to them all sorts of bad 

 motives ; more than intimating that they are 

 leagued with the enemies of the country to get 



votes, and that that is their purpose. Now, sir, 

 I am aware that the history of the world is full 

 of that sort of spirit. I have long experienced 

 it here. It has sometimes been called the crack 

 of the plantation whip. No matter in whose 

 hands it is wielded, the music of that whip is 

 the same, the sound is the same, and the effect 

 is the same. It is totally immaterial whether 

 that spirit is indulged in relation to one subject 

 or another. "Whether, by the bigotry of re- 

 ligious sentiment, it sends a man to the auto 

 dafe, or whether it sends a man to the guillo- 

 tine under political excitement, it is all the 

 same the world over." 



The discussion became somewhat of a per- 

 sonal nature, and was continued at consider- 

 able length between the Senators of extreme 

 and those of conservative views. 



Meantime the subject had been taken up in 

 the House of Representatives, and extensive- 

 ly debated, with nearly similar arguments to 

 those advanced in the Senate. Mr. Thomas, of 

 Massachusetts, among other speakers, in oppo- 

 sition to the bill, thus spoke : " Mr. Speaker, 

 no man can desire more earnestly than I do the 

 suppression of this rebellion, and the restora- 

 tion of order, unity, and peace. But there are 

 two things I cannot, I will not do. I will not 

 trample beneath my feet the Constitution I 

 have sworn before God to support. I will not 

 violate even against these rebels the law of 

 nations as recognized and upheld by all civil- 

 ized and Christian states. I believe I must do 

 both, to vote for these bills, and at the same 

 time do an act unwise and especially adapted 

 to defeat the end in view, if that end be the 

 restoration of the Union and the salvation of 

 the Republic. 



" I propose very briefly to examine the bills 

 before the House (and especially that as to con- 

 fiscation of property) under the law of nations 

 and under the Constitution of the United 

 States, and then to say a word upon their 

 policy. 



" The positions assumed by the friends of 

 these measures are, that we may deal with those 

 engaged in this rebellion as public enemies and 

 as traitors ; that regarding them as enemies, we 

 may use against them all the powers granted 

 by the law of nations ; and viewing them as 

 rebels or traitors, we may use against them all 

 the powers granted by the Constitution ; and 

 that in either view, these bills can be sustained. 



" Dealing with them as public enemies, it is 

 said that under the existing law of nations we 

 have a clear right to confiscate the entire prop- 

 erty on the land as well as the sea, real and 

 personal, of those in arms, and of non-combat- 

 ants who may in any way give aid and comfort 

 to the rebellion. This first bill sweeps over the 

 whole ground. I deny the proposition, Mr. 

 Speaker. In the name of that public law whose 

 every humane sentiment it violates; in the 

 name of that civilization whose amenities it for- 

 gets and whose progress it overlooks ; in the 

 name of human nature itself, whose better in- 



