Glass __L_L2„ 
 
 Rnnk . G PA 
 
e: 
 
 (^n 
 
 G-s.^' 
 

 Carpenter's Reply to Sumner. 
 
 The Senate having under consideration the 
 motion to postpone indefinitely the sundry civil 
 expenses appropriation bill — 
 
 Mr. CARPENTER said : 
 
 Mr. President: The subject of sale of 
 arms to France has been the occasion of sin- 
 gular and eccentric proceedings in the course 
 of this session. We were proceeding in a quiet 
 and orderly way when the Senator from Mas- 
 sachusetts [Mr. Sumner] introduced a pream- 
 ble and resolution which struck the Senate 
 and the country like a clap of thunder from a 
 clear sky. As that preamble and resolution 
 are the foundation of all that has since oc- 
 curred in relation to that subject, and because 
 I desire to furnish to the historian the mate- 
 rial necessary to place the real character of the 
 Senator from Massachusetts before posterity, 
 1 ask the Secretary to read them. 
 
 The Chief Clerk read as follows : 
 
 Whereas it appears from a recent cable telegram 
 that the committee of the French National Assem- 
 bly on war contracts has adopted a resolution ask- 
 ing the United States Government to furnish the 
 result of inquiry into the conduct of American 
 officials suspected of participating in the purchase 
 of arms for the French Government during the war 
 with Germany; and 
 
 Whereas one Squires, agent of Messrs. Reming- 
 ton <fe Sons, at New York, in a dispatch dated at New 
 York Octobers, 1870, addressed to Samuel Reming- 
 ton, at Tours, in France, near the government of 
 national defense, uses the following language : '"We 
 have the strongest influences working for us, which 
 will use all their efforts to succeed;" and 
 
 Whereas in a letter dated at New York, December 
 13, 1871, addressed by Samuel Remington to Jules 
 Le Cesne, president of the armament committee at 
 Tours, in France, the following language is em- 
 ployed: 
 
 New York, December 13, 1870. 
 
 Sie: I have the honur to inform you I have re- 
 ceived your telegram of the 10th and 11th, ordering 
 the number of batteries to be reduced in number to 
 fltty, and intorming me of instructions to the consul 
 regarding the last credit to hioi of 3,000,000 of francs. 
 
 Although at the time of the receipt of the tele- 
 gram I had bought the whole number, one hundred, 
 and had paid the advance required, $200,000, the 
 Government very willingly reduced the number to 
 
 gj'ty^ ********* 
 
 Regarding the purchase of Springfields, (trans- 
 formed,) Allen's system, I am sorry to say the 
 greatest number we may hope to get will not, I fear, 
 
 exceed forty thousand. The Government hasnevef 
 made but about seventy-five thousand all told, and 
 forty thousand is the greatest number they think it 
 prudent to spare. I may be able to procure, de- 
 pending upon an exchange of our arms at some 
 future time, for the number of breech-loading 
 Springfields over and above forty thousand they are 
 willing to let go now. 
 
 This question of an exchange, with the very 
 friendly feeling I find existing to aid France, I hope 
 to be able to procure more. Cartridges for these 
 forty thousand will in a great measure require to be 
 made, as the Government have butabout three mil- 
 lions on hand; but the Government has consented 
 to allow the requisite number, four hundred for 
 each gun, to be made, and the cartridge-works have 
 had orders (given yesterday) to increase production 
 to the full capacity of works. This question of 
 making the cartridges at the Government works was 
 a ditticultone to get over, but itis done. The price 
 the Government will charge for the guns and car- 
 tridges will be , or as near that as possible. 
 
 Jules Le Cksne, esq.. 
 
 President Cuinmianion of Armament, d~c. 
 
 Whereas the Secretary of War, under date of Jan- 
 uary 19, lS72, addressed the following communica- 
 tion to the Secretary of State : 
 
 War Department, 
 Washington City. Junuary 10, 1872. 
 
 Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt 
 of a note from you of the 4th instant, inclosing, by 
 request of Mr. de Bellonnet, charge d'affaires of 
 France, a copy of a letter from Mr. Remington to 
 the president of the commission of armament at 
 Tours, containing aseries of allegations in regard to 
 the purchase of arms, &c. 
 
 The first of these allegations which seem to require 
 specific replies is, " cartridges for these forty thou- 
 sand will in a great measure require to be made, as 
 the Government have but about three million on 
 hand; but the Government has consented to allow 
 the requisite number, four hundred for each gun, to 
 be made, and the cartridge- works have orders (given 
 yesterday) to increase production to the full capa- 
 city of the works. This question of making the car- 
 tridges at the Government works was a difficult one 
 to get over, but itis done." 
 
 In reply to that allegation, I have to say that on 
 the 13th of December, 1870, cartridges necessary to 
 supply about two hundred rounds per gun to the 
 model 1866 breech-loaders sold Thomas Richardson 
 were ordered to be manufactured at the Frankford 
 arsenal, and this numberof cartridges was necessary 
 to effect the sale of the arms. The Messrs. Reming- 
 ton ik Sons did not buy any arms or ammunition 
 from this Department after about the middle of 
 October, 1870, nor would any bid from them for such 
 articles have been entertained by the United States 
 subsequent to that date. 
 
 To the second prominent allegation which is con- 
 tained in the paper purporting to be a copy of a tele- 
 
gram from Squires to Remington, and wliieh is here- 
 with returueil. I liave ttie lioiior to reply that this 
 Department hn? no liiiowledge of any influence ex- 
 erted in f;ivor of. or for the success of, any transac- 
 tiou between the U'litcd States and Mr. Squires, for 
 himself or Messrs. Remington & Sons. 
 Very respectfully, your ubodient servnnt. 
 
 WM. W.BELKNAP. 
 
 Secretary of War. 
 T.) the lion. Secretauy of State. 
 
 Whereas it appears from these several communi- 
 cations, not only that arms were sold, but that am- 
 munition was manufactured in the workshops of 
 the United Slates Government, and sold to one 
 Tliomas Richardson, I he known attorney of Messrs. 
 Remington & Sons, when the bids of the latter had 
 been thrown out for the reason that they were the 
 agents of the French Government ; and. 
 
 Whereas it appears from the official report of the 
 Secretary of War that in the years 1870 and 1871 the 
 sale of ordnance stores reached the sum of S10,000,- 
 000, from which, according to the report, only asmall 
 sum was retained to meet the expenses of prejiaring 
 other stores for sale, while the official report of the 
 Secretary of the Treasury for the same year acknowl- 
 edges the receipt of only $8,28l),131 70, showing a 
 ditforenee of over SI. 70J, 000; and 
 
 Whereas a comparison of the accounts rendered 
 by the French Government for moneys expended by 
 its agents in the purchase of arms from the United 
 States and the accounts rendered by the Govern- 
 ment of the United States for moneys received in 
 the same transaction show a large difi'erence, which 
 seems to have given rise to the suspicion abroad that 
 United States officials have taken an undue part 
 therein; and 
 
 Whereas the good name of the American Govern- 
 ment seems to be seriously compromised by these in- 
 cidents, and a just regard to national honor, as well 
 as to the interests of the Treasuiy, require that 
 they should not be allowed to pass without the most 
 thorough inquiry: Therefore, 
 
 lieiolvd. That a select committee of seven be 
 appointed to investigate all sales of ordnance stores 
 made by the Government of the United States dur- 
 ing the fiscal year ending the 30th ot June, A. D. 
 \^1\, to a.'icertain the persons to whom such sales 
 were made, the circumstances under which they 
 were made, the sums respectively paid by said pur- 
 chasers to the United States, and the disposition 
 made of the proceeds of said sales; and that said 
 committee also inquire and report whether any 
 member of the Senate, or any other American citi- 
 zen is or has been in communication or collusion 
 with the Government or authorities of France, or 
 with any agent or officer thereof, in reference to the 
 .said matters; and that the committee have power 
 to send for persons and papers ; and that the invest- 
 igation be conducted in public. 
 
 Mr. CARPENTER. Mr. President, as- 
 suming that the Senator from Massachusetts, 
 in offering this preattible and resolution, was 
 actuated by patriotic, not partisan motives, 
 assuming that he was anxious only to preserve 
 the honor of our country, and that he was free 
 from any malicious impulse against the Admin- 
 istration, he was justified in saying that the 
 matter deserved the serious consideration of 
 Congress. The preamble recited the passage 
 of a resolution, by a committee of the French 
 Assembly, casting suspicion upon the good 
 faith of our Government; secondly, a sup- 
 posed discrepancy between the War and Treas- 
 nry Departments of over a million dollars ; 
 from which he drew the presumption that 
 there had been grossly corrupt jol)bing iti the 
 sale of these arms, in whicli officers of our 
 Government had participated, and that the 
 sales, in view of the circumstances under 
 
 which they were made, flagrantly violated the 
 neutral duties of the United States pending 
 the great war between France and Germany. 
 And not a member of the Senate objected to 
 an honest and thorough investigation touching 
 this matter ; and the resolution, apart from 
 the preamble, might have been passed in the 
 morning hour ot any day, without debate. 
 But many Senators were opposed to adopt- 
 ing the preamble, which substantially declared 
 guilt in advance of an invest igation. There- 
 fore a debate took place. Indeed, the Senator 
 from Massachusetts seemed unwilling to per- 
 mit the passage of his resolution without a 
 previous debate, which would eijable him, ia 
 advance of investigation, to poison the public 
 mind ; thus demonstrating that he had in view 
 some end wholly different from an honest in- 
 vestigation of the i'acts. Therefore more than 
 two weeks of our session was exhausted and 
 worse than wasted in a })olitical discussion, as 
 a prelude to an investigation to which no Sen- 
 ator objected. 
 
 Having been challenged by the Senator 
 from MassaiChuseits as incompetent to serve 
 upon the committee, upon the assumption that 
 1 was opposed to " the thing," I ask the Sec- 
 retary to read an extract from the remarks 
 made by me upon thai Senator's motion to 
 postpone the consideration of an a[)propria- 
 tiou bill and proceed to consider his preamble 
 and resolution. 
 
 The Chief Clerk read as follows: 
 
 "As a friend of the Senator from Massachusetts, E 
 am opposed to suspending him in this juncture of 
 affairs, with the fuse lighted, which at this period, 
 if he were to stop, would be very likely to burn his 
 fingers. No, let the proceedings go on; let this 
 investigation be had ; and 1 will vote for every 
 measure, I will vote lor every proposition that can 
 insure a thorough, speedy, stringent investigation 
 of this subject, and whereverguilt is established and 
 wrong i)roved, there let censure fall and punish- 
 ment await the guilty." 
 
 Mr. CARPENTER. This pledge I fully 
 redeemed. 1 voted for every amendment 
 which was offered to the resolution enlarging 
 its scope and intensifying its purpose, and then 
 voted for the resolution as it passed the Senate. 
 After about two weeks' debate the Senator from 
 Massachusetts had become ashamed of his pre- 
 amble and attemj)ted to withdraw it ; to which 
 the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Sueuman] objected 
 upon the ground that alter the Senator from 
 Massachusetts had wasted two weeks of the 
 session upon a wholly useless debate, he ought 
 not to be permitted to withdraw the preamble, 
 and thus conceal the ground upon which the 
 debate had proceeded. Afterwards, upon the 
 29th of February, the vole was taken upon the 
 adoption of the resolution, and I ask the Sec- 
 retary to read the yeas and nays by which it 
 was adopted. 
 
 The Chief Clerk read as follows: 
 
 " Yeas— Messrs. Ames, Anthony, Blair, Boreman, 
 
 Brownlow, Caldwell, Cameron, Carpenter, Casserly, 
 
 Chandler, Clayton, Conkling, Corbelt. Cragin, Davis 
 
 of West Virginia, Ferry of Connecticut, Ferry of 
 
Michigan, Flanasnn, Goldthwaite, Harnilton of 
 Texas, llamlii), llnrliin, Hill, Iliioiipock, Johnston, 
 Kelioffg, Kelly, Logan, Morrill of Vermont, Mor- 
 ton, Nye, Osborn, Poineroy, Pratt, Ilninspy, llit-e, 
 Robertson, Saulsbury, Sawyer, Schurz, Scott, Sher- 
 man. Spencer, Sjirague. Stevenson. Stockton, Sum- 
 ner, Thurman, Tipton, Trumbull, Vickers, and Win- 
 dom— 5l!. 
 
 "Nays — Messrs. Cole, Edmunds, Gilbert, Lewis, 
 and Wright— 5." 
 
 Mr. CARPENTER. It will thus be seen 
 that the Senate selected this comnaittee from 
 those who had voted for the investigation ; and 
 the Senators who voted against adopting the 
 resolution did so because they had become 
 satislied, during the debate, that the whole pro- 
 ceeding was unfounded and malicious. 
 
 On the *29tli of Februarj' the Senator from 
 Massachusetts again attempted to withdraw 
 his preamble, and on that occasion the Sena- 
 tor from Ohio [Mr. Sheiuian] stated the true 
 condition of the question before the Senate, 
 and the reason why the Senator should not be 
 permitted to withdraw it. I ask the Secretary 
 to read. 
 
 The Chief Clerk read as follows : 
 
 "Mr. Sherman. At the very outset of the propo- 
 sition I, with the assent of every Senator around 
 me, openly proposed that the resolution should be 
 passed nem. con., without debate, and everybody 
 around me, even my friend on my right, [Mr. Cole,] 
 who voted against it iinally because he thought the 
 very groundwork of the investigation had been 
 dissipated by the debate — even he was anxious 
 originally to liave the resolution passed. This reso- 
 lution might have been passed on the very first day 
 it was offered by a unanimous vote of the Senate, 
 and the Senator from Massachusetts as chairman of 
 the committee appointed under it might have been 
 at worli investigating the evidence upon which all 
 these vague imputations are founded. 
 
 "Sir, if this was an investigation for purity, for 
 good order, for integrity, for honesty, as has been 
 proclaimed so olten, why has the resolution not 
 been passed for three weeks? Why has the resolution 
 of investigation been debated here for three weeks 
 when within that time all the testimony might have 
 been taken in proper form, all the witnesses might 
 have been examined, the archives of the War L)e- 
 partmentand Treasury Department, and all these 
 matter might have been explored from the beginning 
 to the cud under the careful guidance of the Sen- 
 ator from Massachusetts himself? There was no 
 other reason except that he and other Senators here 
 desired a political debate at the expense of all the 
 business interests of this country." 
 
 Mr. CARPENTER. I have requested the 
 Secretary to read from the speech of the Sen- 
 ator from Ohio, because he objected to the 
 withdrawal of tiie preamble by the Senator 
 from Massachusetts. 'The same thing was 
 stated over and over again by other Sena- 
 tors; by the honorable Senator from Indiana 
 [Mr. Morton] and by many others. The fact 
 was patent that the resolution could have been 
 passed at any lime without a moment's debate ; 
 in ten minutes, says the Senator from Indiana. 
 Every friend ot the Administration felt tliat 
 after the resolution was offered, a thorough 
 and searching investigation was an al)Solute 
 nc^-essity, even in the interest of tlie Admit'.is- 
 tration ; but two weeks of our precious time 
 were wasted in a political debate, because the 
 Senator from Massachusetts insisted that his 
 
 preamble should be considered, although after 
 all it is due to him to say that he became 
 ashained of it and sought to withdraw it. On 
 the 29th of February a motion to lay the pre- 
 amble on the table was voted upon, atid I ask 
 the Secretary to read the yeas and nays upon 
 that question. 
 
 The Chief Clerk read as follows: 
 
 "Mr. Thouman. I want to know what question 
 the Senate is to vote on. 
 
 '■ The Vice PiiEsiDENT. To lay the preamble on 
 the table, upon which the yeas and nays have been 
 ordered. 
 
 "The question being taken by yeas and nays, 
 re.sulted— yeas 40, nay 1 ; as follows: 
 
 "Yeas — Messrs. Boreman, Brownlow, Caldwell, 
 Cameron, Carpenter. Cfisserly, Clayton, Conkling, 
 Cragin, Davis of West Virginia, Flanagan. Freling- 
 huysen, Gilbert, (Joldthwaite, Harlan, Hill, John- 
 ston, Kellogg, Kelly, Logan, Morrill of Vermont, 
 Morton, Norwocid, Nye, Osborn, Pratt, Robenson. 
 Schurz, Scott, Sherman, S|)encer, Spragnc, Steven- 
 son, Sumner. Thurniiin, Tipton, Trumbull, Vickers, 
 West, and Wright— 40. 
 
 " Nay— Mr. Edmunds — 1." 
 
 Mr. CARPENTER. Thus it will be seen, 
 Mr. President, that the Senate with but one 
 dissenting vote laid this preamble on the table, 
 and that the Senator from Massachtisetts was 
 among those who voted to consign it to that 
 fate. Next tiie Senate elected a committee in 
 pursuance of the resolution. That act of tlie 
 Senate has been arraigned by the Senator from 
 Massachusetts in a formal protest which he \ 
 has spread upon the record, and which is to 
 go down to posterity as his criticism upon and 
 his condemnation of the Senate itself. He 
 maintained that members of the committee 
 were incompetent to sit upon it, upon the 
 ground that they had expressed an opinion 
 adverse to what he calls, I think very properly, 
 "the thing;" for if there ever was anything 
 since the world began that merited that con- 
 temptuous appellation, it was this investiga- 
 tion, whicli was a thing, a mere thing, a very 
 contemptible thing. 
 
 The record shows that every member of the 
 committee was in favor of an investigation ; 
 voted for every amendment which was offered 
 to the resolution enlarging its scope, even an 
 amendment offered by the Senator from Mis- 
 souri [Mr. Schurz] in regard to the sale of 
 muskets and the defenseless condition of the 
 country in consequence ; voted for the amend- 
 metit offered by the Senator from New York 
 [Mr. Conkling] to investigate the conduct of 
 Senators; voted for every amendment that 
 was offered, and tlien for the resolution itself. 
 
 Now, even within the parliamentary rule — 
 which I understand to apply only to a case 
 where the presiding officer of a legislative body 
 is appointing a committee, that he shall com- 
 mit the measure to its friends — this measure 
 was committed to its friends, if by mea-sure is 
 meant an honest investigation of the facts. 
 Every member of the committee voted for the 
 resolution and every atuendment to it, and 
 had from first to last avowed himself in favor 
 of the mostsearching investigation ; and when 
 
6 
 
 the Senator from Massachusetts says this 
 "thing" was not committed to its friends, he 
 must mean that "the thing" wns a design to 
 accomplish something altogether different from 
 an iiouest invesiigation of ilie facts. 
 
 Mr. President, ihe Senator's purpose is now 
 revealed. We know what his motive was; we 
 know it was not to investigate ihe facts. I'he 
 facts were not wanted, else the resolution 
 would have been passed at once and tlie facts 
 obtained without delay; but it vvas desired to 
 have a two weeks' debate, a deliberate, pre- 
 meditated, malicious, assault. uj)on ilie Admin- 
 istration, based upon nothing save the assump- 
 tion of facts recited in the [ireamble; and the 
 subsequent course of that Senator has abun- 
 dantly demonstrated iliat " the thing'' was not 
 an invesiigation, but an attempt to blacken 
 this Administration without regard to truth or 
 justice. 
 
 Well, Jlr. President, notwithstanding the 
 protest and challenge to the array which was 
 made by the Senator from Massachusetts, de- 
 nying that, the committee had any right to 
 proceed, denjing that the chairman had any 
 right to examine the witneSfCS, insisting that 
 the examination should be made exclusively 
 by the Senator from Missouri, [Mr. ScHuiiz,] 
 who was not a member of the committee; the 
 comniiitee, notwithstanding that protest, pro- 
 ceeded to obey the recorded command of the 
 Senate, thinking that our duty was prescribed 
 by the Senate rather than by the protest of 
 the Senator from Massachusetts. 
 
 As to the 6rst act of the committee — and I 
 cite it to show that a fair investigation was 
 in'ended by the committee — its chairman 
 addiessed a letter to the Senator from Massa- 
 chusetts, and another to the Senator from 
 Missouri, requesting them to furnish the com- 
 mittee with any information upon the subject 
 which they [lossessed, and with the names 
 of any witnesses that they de&ired to have 
 examined. 
 
 'J he Senator from Missouri returned a writ- 
 ten answer to the committee, which is printed 
 in the report, and the substance of which was 
 that it would be useless for him to furnish 
 names of witnesses unless he could be present 
 to examine them. The committee thereupon 
 invited the Senator from Missouri to attend 
 its sessions, and informed him that he would 
 be permitted to examine or cross-exaiuine 
 every witness, and that every person in the 
 Uiiited States tlial he desired to have exam- 
 ined would be subpt'naed and submitted to his 
 examination The Senator from Missouii ac- 
 cepted this invitation, and performed the olKce 
 of prosecutor. He was present at every ses- 
 sion of the committee; he was present at the 
 examination of every witness before the com- 
 mittee. 1 believe not a question was put or 
 answer given except in the presence of the 
 Senator from Missouri. Numerous witnesses 
 whose names he furnished to the committee 
 
 were subpenaed and submitted to his exam- 
 ination. Not a person in the United States 
 that he desired to have examined was omit- 
 ted. I'he examination was conducted by him- 
 self as the report shows. It is all on record. 
 There are his witnesses ; there are his ques- 
 tions; there are the answers. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, these being the facts, 
 I say that when the Senator from Massachu- 
 setts rose in his place and characterized this 
 report as a whitewashing report, he- violated 
 all parliamentary courtesy and disregarded 
 recorded truth. 
 
 When the committee made their report, the 
 Senator from Massachusetts rose in his place 
 and entered a protest against it, which pro- 
 test was a mere condemnation of the Senate 
 itself. Why, Mr. President, this committee 
 did not elect itself; the Senate elected it; 
 and after the election was made, one member 
 of the coinmiitee rose in his place a/vd asked 
 to be excused, and the Senate by a vote of 
 yeas and nays refused to excuse him, and 
 ordered the investigation to proceed by the 
 committee as elected. And here in passing, 
 and wiihout more fully discussing it, Itl me 
 say — and I regret at this point the absence of 
 the chairman of the committee — 1 understand 
 this rule of parliamentary law to apply to the 
 presiding officer of a body, and not to the body 
 itself, ijut the Senate, in electing a committee 
 for any end or purpose, is a law unto itself. 
 What the Senate does, no Senator can ques- 
 tion, unless some provision of the Constitution 
 be violated. But when this report came in, the 
 Senator froiu Massachusetts met it with a 
 formal, insulting protest; and then on Thurs- 
 day last, in the hurry of the business of the 
 closing hours of the session, while we were all 
 anx'ous to pass important bills, and while we 
 were engaged in passing a bill to relieve the 
 people of many millions of taxation, comes 
 again the Senator from Massachusetts, and 
 maintains that he and the Senator from Mis- 
 souii had been assaulted by the report of the 
 committee, and asks that the Senate suspend 
 all its business and hear his personal defense. 
 He said in substance — 1 do not pretend to quote 
 his language — that the Senate could not deny 
 him that act of justice. So the Senate gave 
 way, and the Senator from Massachusetts, in a 
 speech which covers nearly three pages of the 
 Globe, said nothing whatever about the report, 
 or of the sale of arms or in defense of liiinself, 
 except the following, which I ask the Secretary 
 to read : 
 
 The Chief Clerk read as follows : 
 
 " The Senator from Wiscvinsin is now in hi.s seat. 
 Ilo is the author of the report. I think he can rep- 
 resent it on the Qoor. 
 
 "1 begin, sir, by callins attention to the report on 
 the siilc of arms to France. 
 
 " Thisreport isan extraordinary document, doubt- 
 less one of the most extraordinary in piirliamentary 
 history, but not more cxtraordinury than the com- 
 mittee. Indued, from such a cominittoe, constituted 
 in opcndetiauue of a first principle of parliameulary 
 
law, it would be natural to expect a report defying 
 first principles in everythiug. At least three of the 
 comuiilteo were disqualilied from sitting, as much as 
 a juror who has given his opinion before trial, and 
 one of those was the chairman. According to par- 
 liamentary law, they should hare risen in the Senate 
 and declined to serve ; but they went on the com- 
 mittee, and the t)resent report is their verdict. 
 
 "I present this report as unworthy of the Sen- 
 ate in every ret pect ; wantiujj in ordinary fairness 
 Hnbecoming in tone, unjust to Senators wlio, had 
 deemed it theirduty to move the inquiry, and ridic- 
 ulous in its attempt to expound international law. 
 Its character is already lixed beyond recall. So far 
 as remembered, it will be known as the " white- 
 washing report." For the present I forbear to say 
 more on this head, assured that the Senator from 
 Missouri |Mr. Schuez] will do it ample justice." 
 
 Mr. CARPENTER. Mr. President, this is 
 the language of a man who abhors egotism, 
 who condemns personal pretensions, and who 
 is not of a quarrelsome turn of mind. This is 
 the close reasoning, the candid and respectful 
 argument of a Senator opposed to a report 
 signed by five Senators of this body, in the 
 discharge of a duty imposed upon them by a 
 resolution of the Senate. 'Jhis is the language 
 of a docile Christian, who. when smitten upon 
 one cheek, " turns the other also ;" who, 
 when he is " reviled," reviles not again. Of 
 this report, brought here in obedience to the 
 command of the Senate, the Senator, after 
 kindly announcing to the Senate that the 
 rei^ort was written by myself, adds that it 
 is '' unworlh}' of the Senate in every respect, 
 wanting in ordinary fairness, unbecoming in 
 tone, unjust to Senators who had deemed 
 it their duty to move the inquiry, and ridicu- 
 lous iu its attempt to expound international 
 law." 
 
 Why, Mr. President, after such a towering 
 panegyric from the Senator, 1 should be utterly 
 wanting in all the reciprocal offices of courtesy 
 if I did not pay him an occasional compliment 
 in the course of my remarks to-day, [laugh- 
 ter;] and I regret that the Senator, who was in 
 his seat at the commencement of my remarks, 
 has withdrawn, so that I may not pay him so 
 much attention as 1 should were he jjresent 
 to enjoy it. I shall speak presently in detail 
 of the remarks made by the Senator from 
 Massachusetts. 
 
 His speech was followed by a speech of the 
 Senator from Missouri, [Mr. Schurz,] criticis- 
 ing the report of the committee ; and I ^hall 
 first give attention to that. 
 
 The Senator from Missouri was more than 
 usually happy in oratory upon that occasion. 
 He is a philosopher beyond all question, and 
 lie comes very strictly within the Scotchman's 
 definition of a metaphysician, as "he talks 
 about what nobody can understand, and what 
 arpparently he does not understand himself. " 
 [Laughter.] As 1 listened to that fearful out- 
 pouring of eastern philosophy removed far be- 
 yond the range of analysis, incomprehensible 
 to common minds, gloomy to the apprehen- 
 sion, I desi^aired answering its points, because, 
 if it had any points, they were merged in the 
 Senator's gorgeous rhetoric. [J^aughter.] I 
 
 waited anxiously to see the speech in the Globe. 
 It has not yet appeared. Mere rhetoric, lofty 
 declamation, brilliant and eloquent discourse, 
 if not founded upon truth, can never incite 
 a revolution in this country ; and the Senator 
 from Missouri ought to consider that fact, 
 because a revolution is the thing he seems 
 determined to accomplish. 
 
 1 did, however, infer from the remarks of 
 the Senator from Missouri that he was not ia 
 favor of the report of the committee. [Laugh- 
 ter.] I think 1 do not misrepresent him whea 
 I say he did not approve it. I do not recollect 
 that any single branch of it met his very 
 decided approbation. Not having his speech 
 before me, I am compelled to confine myself 
 to an examination of the report, and thus to 
 its fortification, if examination will lead to 
 that end. 
 
 When the committee entered upon the per- 
 formance of its duty, the first difficulty it met 
 was iu its attempt to obtain the testimony of 
 the Senator from Massachusetts. He had in- 
 troduced the preamble and the resolution. He 
 was the author of and respousiljle for the 
 proceeding, and the committee thought itself 
 obliged to call him, that he might communi- 
 cate his knowledge and let the committee know 
 its sources ; that he might let the committee 
 know the 4'aets upon which he had taken the 
 responsibility to brand high officers of the Gov- 
 ernment and cast suspicion and dishonor upon 
 our national character. When tlse Senator 
 was requested to attend before the committee, 
 he folded about him his senatorial toga and 
 delivered us a written protest, which recited 
 the fact that he, the Senator from Massachu- 
 setts, could not condescend to pay any such 
 committee any such attention. 1 read the first 
 paragraph of this protest, which is instructive 
 when we consider that it was from a man 
 utterly devoid of egotism: 
 
 " Personally, I object to no examination; willingly 
 would I submit to the most searching scrutiny, not 
 only in the present case, but in all my public life. 
 There is not an act, letter, or conversatio.':, at any 
 time, which I would save from investigation." 
 
 Happy Senator from Massachusetts ! Never 
 before, since the lowly Nazarene walked be- 
 neath the bending palms of Palestine, has 
 any being on earth been able truthfully to say 
 there is no act, no letter, no conversation, no 
 idle word of mine that I do not recall with 
 satisfaction. This protest must at least be 
 regarded as a frank " admission " by the Sen- 
 ator that he is a sinless man. 
 
 But, Mr. President, although the Senator 
 in this protest declared that he must consult 
 his senatorial duty, which forbade his appear- 
 ance before the committee, he changed his 
 mind when the committee issued to him the 
 " subpena," clothed with the auihoriiy of 
 law, and denouncing the penalty of imprison- 
 ment for a refusal to obey it; the statute read- 
 ing as follows: 
 
 "That any person summoned as a witness by the 
 
8 
 
 authority of either House of Congress, to give testi- 
 mony, or to produce papers, upon any matter before 
 either House, or before any cnuimittee of either 
 House ol Congress, who shall willlully make default, 
 or who, luipearing, shall refuse to iinswer any ques- 
 tion pertinent to the matter of inquiry in consider- 
 atiun before the House or coinuiltiee by which he 
 shall be examined, shall, in addition to the pains 
 and penalties now cxistiner, be liable to indii'tmcnt 
 as and for a misdemeanor in any court of the United 
 States having jurisdiction thereof, and, on convic- 
 tion, shall piiy a fine not exceeding Sl.OuO, and 
 sufi'er imprisonment in the common jail not less 
 than one month nor more than twelve months." 
 
 When the subpeiia went out to the great 
 Senator ileiiotinciiig this penuliy, and when the 
 Senator saw the [nison-door opening to receive 
 him, lie reconsidered his senatorial duty, he low- 
 ered his banner, and submitted himself to the 
 law of the land. 1 commend the Senator for 
 that act of dignified obedience ; the world 
 owes him a debt of gratitude. Free institu- 
 tions were rescued from a perilous doubt, for 
 at the lime it was questionable wiiether that 
 supreme authority to which all must bow, was 
 personified in the law of the land, or in the 
 Senator from Massachusetts. The Senator 
 kindly resolved the quesiioii in favor of the 
 law, and submitted himself to its authority. 
 It would have been more gratifying, perhaps, 
 bad he done this without protest; yet we owe 
 him a deep debt of gratitude that he did it 
 even with a protest. The laws should be 
 thankful for small favors when dealing with 
 the Senator from Massachusetts. He protested 
 agaitist obeying the law ; he declared that he 
 was not bound to obey the law ; yet as matter 
 of grace and iavor to the law, and disliking 
 much to enter the portals of the District jail, 
 he waived his "privilege," yielded to the sub- 
 peiia. and submitting to the hiw, came for- 
 ward and look his place upon the stand. 
 
 The committee thought the crisis of its des- 
 tiny had passed when tlie Senator from Massa- 
 cbuselts thus submitted, and it was then sup- 
 posed that the Senator would reveal all that he 
 knew about this subji^ct ; but therein the ex- 
 pectation of the committee was not realized. 
 The Senatiir troni Massachusetts refused to 
 reveal to the committee the sources of his in- 
 formation, saying that his informants were 
 " eminent men " who had communicated wiih 
 him in confidence; but he declined to give 
 their names. Who they were, or what was the 
 foundaiion of their knowledge, whether it was 
 mere suspicion and rumor or actual knowl 
 edge, the committee could not ascertain, 
 because, to that extent, the Sena or from Mas- 
 sachusetts would not submit to the law. He 
 infortiied the committee that he had handed 
 over the letters from these eminent men to the 
 Senator from Missouri, with authority to use 
 them in such a manner as he saw fit, l)ut not 
 to disclose the writers' names. Tlie Senator 
 froiu Missouri, therefore, who acted as pjose- 
 cuior before the committee, had all the in- 
 formation which tlie Senator from Massachu- 
 setts liad, but which the committee did not 
 buve, and could not obtain from these Sen- 
 
 ators. So far as the Senator from Missouri 
 desired, in view of the information which he 
 and the Senator from Massachusetts possessed, 
 to subpena witnesses, they were subpenaed, 
 and their examination was taken. Whether 
 there was anything in those communications 
 which suggested a counter pi oof, the commit- 
 tee could not ascertain. I'liey were informed 
 of nothing in regard to these letters, but only 
 had the benefit of the examination of sucb 
 witnesses as the Senator from Missouri, after 
 considering the letters, deemed it prudent to 
 call before the cominiitee. 
 
 So much, Mr. President, for the history of 
 the committee and its proceedings. Now for 
 a few moments let me refer. to the report 
 itself. The first question upoti the report dis- 
 cussed by the Senator from Miss(juri was the 
 question of the power to sell ttiese arms under 
 the acts of Congress. Two statutes have been 
 referred to, the first of which is the statute of 
 March 23, 1825, which reads as follows : 
 
 "That the President of the United States be. and 
 he is hereby, authorized to cause to be sold any ord- 
 nance, arms, ammunition, or other stores, orsubsist- 
 ence or medical supplies, which, upon proper in- 
 spection or survey, shall apiiear to be damaged or 
 otherwise unsuitable for the public service, when- 
 ever, in his opinion, the sale of such unserviceable 
 stores will be advantageous to the public service. 
 
 "Sec. 2." 
 
 And the second section must be deemed as 
 giving character and construction to the first — 
 
 " That the inspection or survey of the unservice- 
 able stores sh;ill be mnde by an inspector general, or 
 such other otiicer or officers as the Secretary of War 
 may appoint for that purpose; anM tlie sales shall 
 be made under such rules and regulations as may be 
 prescribed by the Secretary of War." 
 
 This act has been in forcesince 1825. Various 
 regulations have been made in the War Depart- 
 ment for its execution wliich are important in 
 connection with this subject, and 1 will ask the 
 Secretary to read from the ordnance regula- 
 tions of 1834, pages 21 and 22, the passages 
 which I have marked. 
 
 The Chief Clerk read as follows: 
 
 "84. Whenever ordnance or ordnance stores are 
 reported unserviceable, they will bo examined by 
 an inspector general, or some otiicr officer specially 
 appointed by the Secret;iry of VViiifor that purpose, 
 who will note on the inventory such as ho condemns 
 as wholly unserviceable, such as heconsiders repair- 
 able, and such as he deems serviceable, lie will 
 recoiaiuend the stores condemned by him either to 
 bo broken up at the arsenal, depot, or military posts, 
 or to be sold, as may be deemed most advantageous 
 to the public service. But should it a.p|)ear to the 
 inspector that the ordnance or ordnance stores con- 
 demned are of too little value to cover the expense 
 of sale or breaking up, he will recommend them to 
 be dropped from the return as useless. Sucb arms 
 and stores as the inspector may consider repairable 
 he will direct either to be repaired at the arsenal, 
 depot, or military post; or to be transi)orted to the 
 nearcr-t or most convenient arsenal or depot of con- 
 struction and repiiir. The inventory, (See form No. 
 9,) with the remarks and opinion of the inspector, 
 shall bouiiide in duplicate; one copy to be left with 
 the officer having charge of the ordnance and ord- 
 nance stores, and the other to be forwarded to the 
 chief of the ordnance depart'Jient tor the further 
 action of the President of the United States. 
 
 '"85. All articles coudcmned aud ordered for sale 
 
9 
 
 by the President of the United S'ates shall be 
 disposed ol .'it public auctidii. under the su|jerin- 
 tendence of such officers as may be designated tor 
 that purpose liy the chief of the ordnance depart- 
 ment, due previous public noticein t he newspapers 
 beins given of the sale. An authorized auctioneer 
 will he einr>Ioyed, and the sale conducted in con- 
 formity with the establishetl usiikcs of the place 
 where made. 
 
 "8G. An otRcer directing sales of unserviceable 
 ordnance stores will cause the articles to be offered 
 in such lots as he may tliink will command the best 
 prices; an I he is auiiiorizcd to bid in or suspei d the 
 sale of any article when, in his opinion, t hey will 
 command better prices at private sale. No article 
 will he sold at private sale until after it shall have 
 been offered al auction, nur then at a price less than 
 that offered at public Sale. 
 
 "87. All sales shall brt for cash. The auctioneer 
 will make certified bills of sale of the property 
 and deliver them to ttie superintending officer, to 
 whom the money shall be paid on delivery of the 
 property. All expenses of sale will be |iaid from its 
 proceeds. Tlie net proceeds will be deposited in the 
 bank in which the lunds of the arsenal, depot, or 
 post, are directed to be deposited, immediately 
 thereafter by the commanding officer, to the credit 
 of the Trea-urer of tlie United Slates. 
 
 "88. Ceriificates of the dejiosiis of the money, the 
 auctioneer's certified account of sales in detail, and 
 the vouchers for the expense of the 'ale, shall be 
 forwarded to the chief of the ordnance depart ment, 
 unconnected with quarterly accounts, whence, after 
 examination and record, they will be transmitted to 
 the proper auditor (or settlement." 
 
 Mr. CAKPENTEPt. I ask the Secretary to 
 read also irum the Army Regulations of 1841, 
 page 1G8. 
 
 The Chief Clerk read as follows : 
 
 "918. Should an officer or other agent of the ord- 
 nance department charged with ordnance and ord- 
 nance stores fail to render the piescribed returns 
 thereof within a reasonable time after the termina- 
 tion of a quarter, a settlement shall be made of his 
 accounts at the freasury, and the money-value of 
 the supplies with whicti he stands charged shall be 
 reported against him for collection. The delin- 
 quency will also furnish matter of military accu- 
 sation, at the discretion of the proper authorities." 
 
 Mr. CARPENTER. I will ask the Secre- 
 tary to read also from the Army Regulaiioiis 
 of 1857. page 119. 
 
 The Chief Clerk read as follows: 
 
 "927. When military stores or other Army sup- 
 plies are reported to the War Department as unsuit- 
 able to the service, a proper inspection or survey 
 ot them shall be made by an inspector general or 
 such suitable otBcer or officers as the Secretary of 
 War may appoint for that purpose. Separate in- 
 ventories of the stores, according to the disposition 
 to be made of them, shall accompany the inspection 
 report: as of articles to be repaired, to be broken 
 up, to be sold, of no use or value, and to be dropped, 
 &c. The inspection report and inventories shall 
 show the exact condition ol the different articles. 
 
 " 928. Military stores and other Army supplies 
 found unsuitable to the public service, alter ii spec- 
 tion by an in-'pector general, or such special inspec- 
 tion as may have been direcieil in the case, and 
 ordered for sale, shall be sold for cash atauciion, on 
 due public notice, and in such market as the public 
 interest may require. The officer making the sale 
 will bid in and suspend the sale when, in his opin- 
 ion, better prices may be got. E-Xpiaises of the sale 
 will be paid Irom its proceeds. The auctioneer's 
 certified account of the sales in detail, and the 
 vouchers tor the expenses of the sale, will be 
 reported to the chief of the department to which 
 the property belonged. The net proceeds will be 
 applied as the Secretary of War may direct." 
 
 Mr. CARPENTER. I also ask the Secre- 
 
 tary to read from the Army Regulations of 
 ]8()3, pages 152, 153, and 154, the marked 
 passages. 
 
 The Chief Clerk read as follows : 
 
 "1023. An officer commanding a (lpf)artment, or 
 an army in the field, may give orders, on the report 
 of the authorized inspectors, to s<'ll. destroy, or make 
 such other disriosition of any condemned property 
 as the case may require, ordnance and ordnance 
 stores alone excepied, for which the orders of the 
 War Department must always be taken. But if the 
 property be of very considerable value, and there 
 should be reason to suppose that it could be advan- 
 tageously applied or disposed of elsewhere than 
 within his command, he will refer the matter to the 
 chief of the staff department to which it belongs 
 for the orders of the War Department. No other 
 persons than those above designated, or tlie Gen- 
 eral-in-Chief, will order the final disposition of con- 
 demned property, saving only in the case of horses 
 which should be killeil at ouce to preventcontagion, 
 and of provisions or other stores which are rapidly 
 deteriorating, when the immediate commander tnay 
 have to act pertoree. Inventories of condemned 
 property will be made in triidicate, one to be re- 
 tained by the person accountable, one to accompany 
 his accounts, and one to be forwarded through the 
 department or other superior headquarters to the 
 chief of the staff department to which the property 
 belongs. Separate inventories must be made ot the 
 articles to be repaired, of those to be broken up, 
 those to be sold, to be dropped," .kc. 
 
 "1032. Military stores and other Army supplies 
 regular'y condemned, and ordered for sale, nhall be 
 sold for cash at auction, on due public notice, and 
 in such market as the public interest may require. 
 The officer making the sale will bid in and suspend 
 the sale when, in his opinion, better prices may be 
 got. Expenses ot the sale will be paid from its pro- 
 ceeds. The auctioneer's certified account ot tha 
 sales in detail, and the vouchers for the expensesof 
 the sale, will be reported to the chief of the depart- 
 ment to which the property belonged. The net pro- 
 ceeds will be applied as the Secretary of War may 
 direct." 
 
 xMr. CARPENTER. Mr. President, these 
 are the regulations prescribed by the VV'ar 
 Department for the execution of the act of 
 1825. I liave requested them to be read and 
 to be put upon the record, to show the under- 
 sianditig ot the ordtiance department and of 
 the Secretary of War, and of all the othcers 
 charged with executing that act, that it related 
 to unserviceable, in the sense of useless, artns. 
 It was that class of arms and munitions which 
 wete next to worthless. The regulations in 
 one place direct the officer, if they are not 
 worth transportation to some arsenal, (for old 
 iron, of course,) todestroy thetn and drop them 
 from the record. 
 
 Mr. SCHURZ. Will the Senator allow me 
 to call his attention to a fact? 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Pome- 
 rot in the cliair.) Does the Senator fmm 
 Wisconsin yield to the Senator from Missouri'? 
 
 Mr. CARPENTER. I will yield to the 
 Senator frotn Missouri in regard to any ques- 
 tion of law, and this is a question of law. 
 
 Mr. SCHURZ. I tnerely want to call the 
 attention of the Senator to the fact that as the 
 regulation was read, the permission to destroy 
 referred to property, not arms and ordiianCQ 
 stores, as 1 understood it. 
 
 Mr. CARPENTER. Very well. They were 
 
10 
 
 regulations adopted under this act of Congress. 
 I atn not now discussing, because that is for- 
 eign to the question before us, all the details 
 cf those orders and regulations. I introduce 
 them, as I said before, to show the understand- 
 ing of the department in regard to the con- 
 struction of the act of 1825 ; that it related 
 only to useless stores or property, whichever 
 the case maybe. Now, these regulations were 
 all in force. The last one which has been 
 read was prescribed in 18G3. In 14 Statutes- 
 al-Large, page 338, is " an act to increase and 
 fix the military peace establishment of the 
 United States," approved July 28, 1866, the 
 thirty-seventh section of which recognizes the 
 then existing regulations, and continues them 
 with the force of law. 
 
 Now we come to a different state of things 
 and to a different subject. Prior to the close 
 of the rebellion, the Government had no large 
 supplies of arms or munitions of war to be 
 disposed of, and the act of 1825, and the reg- 
 ulations under it, contemplated a disposition 
 of property useless for military purposes. But 
 at the close of the rebellion the Government 
 found itself in possession of large quantities 
 cf arms and munitions of war; arms which 
 of course, in process of time, would become 
 nearly or quite useless. Subjected to rust and 
 decay, and to all the decrease in value which 
 must always attend that kind of property, it 
 was deemed advisable to sell, and Congress, 
 by t-he act of 1868, provided — 
 
 " That the Secretary of War be, and he is hereby, 
 authorized " — 
 
 And not only authorized, for that was done 
 by the act of 1825 — 
 " and directed"— 
 
 Thus making the act mandatory upon the 
 Secretary of War — 
 
 " to cause to be sold, after oiTer at public sale on 
 thirty days' notice, in such manner and at such 
 times and places as he may deem most advantage- 
 ous/to the public interest, the old cannon, arms, 
 anclii»ther ordnance stores now in possession of the 
 W.~i(f Department, which are damaged or otherwise 
 unsoitiible for the United States military ser- 
 vice," <fec. 
 
 Thus you see, Mr. President, the scope of 
 this act was much broader than the act of 
 1825. It was not the useless arms and stores 
 that were to be disposed of, as under the 
 former act, but all which were unsuitable. 
 And who was made the judge of what was 
 unsuitable ? The principle of law is as well 
 established as it is that assumpsit, at common 
 law, lies on a promissory note, that where an 
 authority is conferred upon any officer to do a 
 certoin thing in a certain ev«nt or contingsncj^L 
 he is the exclusive judge of the happening of j 
 that event or contingency. According toJ.his | 
 familiar principle, which no lawyer will ques- 
 tion, when this act of 1868 was passed it was 
 mandatory upon the Secretary of War ; it did 
 not leave him the option of acting or not, but 
 made it his duty to act. He was bound to 
 
 dispose of all the arms which, in his judgment, 
 were unsuitable to be kept. That was a very 
 different thing from requiring him to dispose 
 of all useless arms. Here was a large supply 
 on hand, beyond any present or anticipated 
 want of the nation; arms which were being 
 continually superseded by new inventions, and 
 by improvements in the manufacture of arms ; 
 and to keep a supply on hand not needed then, 
 and probably not to be needed in Qlly years, 
 until they should become utterly worthless, 
 would be to keep, in the very language of that 
 act, a supply of unsuitable arms ; and the 
 Secretary of War was charged with the execu- 
 tion of this act in his discretion and judgment, 
 and no lawyer can put upon it any other con- 
 struction. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, the great point to be 
 considered here, and to which I call the atten- 
 tion of the Senate, is that these acis are not, 
 in a lawyer's phrase, in pari materia; they 
 do not relate to the same subject. When two 
 acts are in pari materia the last act, so far as 
 it is inconsistent with the former, repeals the 
 former act ; and of two acts which are incon- 
 sistent in their provisions, if one does not 
 repeal the other, it is because they do not 
 relate to the same subject. The honorable 
 Senator from Missouri, on this branch of the 
 subject, referred the Senate to the opinion of 
 Judge Advocate General Holt, at page 725 of 
 this report. Before referring to that, let me 
 read what the committee say about ikese tv/o 
 acts : 
 
 "The different circumstances under which these 
 acts were passed, the difference in the subjects to 
 which they relate, talien in connection witli the fact 
 that they were to be executed by different oifioera 
 and in different ways, render it clear, in the opinion 
 of your committee, that they are not inpnri materia, 
 and should not be construed togelher so as to incor- 
 porate into one the provisions of the other. By the 
 first act the President, in his discretion, was author- 
 ized to sell arms and stores which, ' upon proper in- 
 spection or survey,' should appear to bo 'damaged 
 or otherwise unsuitable for the public service.' 
 What was meant by the phrase ' damaged or other- 
 wise unsuitable for the public service' is fixed by 
 the second section, which provides 'that the in- 
 spection or survey of the unserviceii/jle utoren ahuU bo 
 made by an inspector general, &c.' From this it is 
 clear that only unserviceable arms were to be sold, 
 and the inspection was a condemnation. Indeed, 
 the Government had no others to sell." 
 
 The Senator from Missouri the other even- 
 ing read this paragraph down to a certain 
 point, and then laid the book down, and con- 
 tinuing in the same tone of voice, so that I 
 inferred he was reading from the report, added 
 the sentence: "then of course the last act 
 repealed the former." 
 
 "■ Mr. SCHURZ. No; the Senator is mis-, 
 taken. I did not say anything of the kind. 
 The Senator misimderstood me. 
 
 Mr. CARPENTER. 1 do not think I can 
 be mistaken. I was cool and listening, and 
 the Senator was under the excitemetit of 
 speaking. Therefore, I think I am higher 
 authority on that point. 
 
11 
 
 Mr. SCEIURZ. I may have said this: 
 " tlieii tlie coinrnittee virtually asserts that 
 the last act lepeals ihe ibriiifr." 
 
 Mr. CAia'ENTEK. Very well. That he 
 did not say, because I was surprised at the 
 time, iiiidersiaiidmg from the tone ot his voice 
 that lie was reading troni the re[)()rt, "the last 
 act refiealed ihe former;" and I sent fur a 
 copy of the report to see if such a blunder had 
 been commuted, and was relieved to tind ihai 
 ii. had not been. Ai. all events no such thing 
 is in the report, and whether assertion or de- 
 duciion makes no differtnce. The Senator 
 underslood, as he now states, that the ground 
 taken by the committee was that the l.isi act 
 had repealed the tirst, and for the purpose of 
 showing that to be a mistake, he relerred us 
 to the opinion of Judge Advocate General 
 Holt at page 725, holding that th«- act of 1825 
 was in iorce ai. the dale of his opinion, which 
 was subsequent to the date of the act of 18G8. 
 If the Stnamr flora Missouri had been a lawyer, 
 or il he lijid consulied a lawyer who had ever 
 earned SlUUO by the practice of his profes 
 sion, he would liave been informed that this 
 opinion ol Holt is ct)inplete and full authority 
 for the doctrine of the report. Why is il that 
 the act of 1825 is not repealed by the act of 
 18G8? 'I'hey are inconsistent in iheir provis- 
 ions. 1 h'- act of 1825 confers upon the Pres- 
 ident a di>creiionar> power to sell, to be exer- 
 cised upon a survey and inspection, or in other 
 words, a condeinnalion of the arms, upon such 
 terms as he may deem reasonable. The act 
 of 1868 confers power upon another officer, 
 the ftecietary of War, and not only author- 
 izes him to sell useless arms, but commands 
 him. not upon inspecion and survey, but upon 
 thirty d.^yn' advertising, to sell the un-uiialjle 
 arms of the (iovernment. Why dul Holt say 
 the act of 1825 was in force at the date of liis 
 opinion, and that an inspection was necessary 
 under that act? Every lawyer will tell the 
 Senator that, it is because the acts are not in 
 pari materia. The act of 1825 related to use- 
 less stores and propeny ; the act of 18G8 re- 
 lated to a different class of property, which, 
 though not useless within the sense of the act. 
 of 1825, was nevertheless unsuitable, in the 
 Bense ot undesirable. Therefore the opinion 
 of Holt conHrms the doctrine of the report. 
 
 Mr. SCHUKZ. Will the Senator permit me 
 to interrupt liim on this point of law/ 
 
 Mr. CAllPEN rEIl. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. SCHUKZ. I assert that the matter 
 treated of by Judge Holt is ex;icily the matter 
 that is treated by the statute of 18G8, and I 
 will prove it by the record. Here is the cor- 
 respondence that took place : 
 
 Washington, October 5, 1869. 
 Republic of Liberia, J. J. Roberts, minister 
 
 Mr. CALlPENrELl. I decline to yield for 
 the reading ot books and documents. 1 will 
 hear the Senator's point, but not an argument. 
 
 Mr. SCHUKZ. 1 merely wanted to make 
 
 the point ijy reading the evidence. But if the 
 Senator prefers not to hear it now I will make 
 the {loint afterward. 
 
 Mr. CARPENTER. Lawyers understand 
 exHCtly theothce ot an interruption, and never 
 object to it, when madi; in a luwyer-like way. 
 An imerrtifiiion of a lawyer at the bar is a 
 common occurrence, but it is always confined 
 to asking a question, or making a suggestion 
 merely tor the purpose of calling an opponent's 
 mind to a certain po.nt, not for the purpose 
 of injecting a reply into his firguinent. No 
 court would permit that, and lawyers never 
 attempt it. 1 know the Senator from Missouri 
 does not design to do ihat, and 1 only object 
 because it wouid break in on the line of my 
 remarks, and he of course will have an oppor- 
 tunity to reply. 
 
 Mr. SCHURZ. I merely wanted to call 
 the Senator's mind to certain facts. 
 
 Mr. CARPENTER. My mind is directed 
 to them. It is not a great mind, and it will 
 not produce a great result when directed to 
 that point, but whatever strength there is in it 
 is at this moment engaged upon the precise 
 point in issue between the Senator and myself, 
 which is. whv did not the act of 1868 repeal 
 ihe act of 1825? And I assert that when Holt 
 says, subsequent to the act of 1868, the act of 
 1825 is still in force, although he did not state 
 the full process by which his mind had reached 
 that conclusion, yet he did, in legal effect, 
 declare that ihese acts are not in pari mate- 
 ria; and this is the doctrine maintained by 
 the report. 
 
 Mr. Pre.-ident, after this act of 1868 was 
 passed, it became the duty of the Secretary 
 of War to put a construction upon it. Every 
 officer of the Government called upon to per- 
 form any duty under an act of Congress must 
 first of all inquire, what duty is to be per- 
 tormed? In other words, he must construe 
 the act itself. That is an indispensable pre- 
 requisite to the execution of a law. If its lan- 
 guage is so plain that it does not require any 
 construction, then of course its iutenr is very 
 easily ascertained. Jf there is any ambiguity, 
 the intent of the law must be arrived at by con- 
 struction. How often has the Supreme Court 
 of the United States said, in deciding cases 
 involving land titles, that the consiruciion 
 given to an act of Congress relating to the 
 public lands by the Commissioner of the Gen- 
 eral Land Office, a mere bureau officer charged 
 wiih the execution of the law, was entitled to 
 be respected by the Sufireme Court of the Li^ni- 
 led States— -not conclusive upon them, but 
 i entitled to their respectful consideration. 
 
 General Sciiotield was the first Secretary of 
 War who was called upon to act under the law 
 of 18G8, and he gave to it this construc'.Ion, 
 that the advertisement of the property might 
 be made in this way: take, for instance, of 
 cannon, of muskets, of cartridges, or any ether 
 of the classes of stores which the Government 
 
12 
 
 had to dispose of, and from time to time adver- 
 tise lots of each class, and then within a rea- 
 sonable time after the advertisement, if they 
 were not purchased at the public sale adver- 
 tised, the Department might sell at private 
 sale. Tbat was the course adopted by Mr. 
 Secretary Schofield, and it had become a set- 
 tled rule of proceeding in the Department 
 before the sales in question were made. 
 
 The committee say that in their opinion that 
 was not a strictly proper construction of the 
 act. I have no doubt, as a lawyer, that a strict 
 comjjliance with the letter of that act required 
 that no arms or stores or property of any kind 
 should be sold which had not first been adver- 
 tised ; and yet there is no doubt that a com- 
 pliance with the letter of the act would have 
 defeated its spirit and object. Why was the 
 Secretary of War required to advertise this 
 property for sale? Manifestly to protect the 
 interests of the Government and to prevent a 
 sacrifit'O at private sale. After this act passed 
 in 1808, the Secretary of War might have 
 advertised every ariicle in the possession of 
 the Government, from the Swamp Angel at 
 Charleston down to the smallest pocket pistol 
 in the armory, for sale at a certain time; and if 
 there had been no bidders, as probably there 
 would not have been, then from that time on 
 for lorty years he might have continued in the 
 daily sale of these arms and stores at private 
 sale ; and yet it is apparetil that such literal 
 compliance with the law would have defeated 
 its spirit and object, because the advertisement 
 in 18(38 v«)iild have been no notice to the pub- 
 lic in 1870. 1871, 1872, and 1873, and so on. 
 
 So that the course which was adopted by the 
 War Department, while it did not follow the 
 letter of the act, did effect the very purpose 
 of the act. It gave notice from time to time 
 to the public of the classes of stores and arms 
 which the Government had for sale, and the 
 sales which were made gave information to 
 the Secretary of War what those arms and 
 stores would bring : so that the very object 
 of the act of Congress was answered by the 
 construction put upon it by the Secretary of 
 War, better than by what, in my judgment, is 
 the strict construction of the act. 
 
 The committee made use of the phrase that 
 this construction of the War Department was 
 rather a soldier's than a lawyer's construction ; 
 and tl>e Senator from Missouri soared at that 
 remark like a sky rocket. He held me up to 
 the indignation of forty millions of people, 
 (for he never speaks merely to the Senate,) 
 and taunted me with being an advocate of a 
 soldier's construction of the law. He notified 
 the people that our doom was near at hand 
 when a committee of this body eould make a 
 deliberate report that a soldier's construction 
 of an act, right or wrong, was better than a 
 lawyer's construction of the act, right or wrong. 
 We were then in a political atmosphere which 
 indicated certain doom to our liberties and 
 
 our national existence ; an atmosphere ap- 
 parently very offensive to the nostrils of the 
 Senator from Missouri who has so recently re- 
 turned from the pure etherof Cincinnati, where 
 not an office-seeker wentand not one who went 
 will hold an office for forty years to come. 
 [Laughter.] 
 
 I was not only ridiculed as recreant to the 
 duty of a Senator, but I was held up to the 
 indignation of my brethren of the bar. The 
 Senator said in substance, he thought this was 
 the first time a lawyer had ever degraded the 
 profession by exalting the construction of a 
 soldier over the construction of the lawyer. 
 
 Mr. SCHURZ. I did not say that. 
 
 Mr. CARPENTER, You did not say those 
 words, but in the language of the Senator from 
 Massachusetts, you said that "thing." My 
 preference for the construction put upon this 
 act by the War Department does not rest upon 
 the fact that it was the construction of a sol- 
 dier; it rests upon the fact that it was a con- 
 struction which protected the rights of the 
 Government — a construction by which the will 
 of Congress was executed better than it would 
 have been under the lawyer's construction. 
 
 Why, Mr. President, we pass laws here every 
 day imposing duties upon soldiers, duties upon 
 the Commander-in-Chief of our Army and upon 
 the ordnance department, upon the War De- 
 partment, filled, exercised, and occupied by 
 officers of the Army. They must construe 
 those laws. It is not supposed by Congress, 
 nor is it the fact, that those men are all tech- 
 nical and accurate lawyers ; but. it is supposed 
 that they are honest men, and that they will 
 carry out and execute the spirit of the act and 
 protect the interests of the Gowrninent. 
 
 I am sorry that the Senator's speech is not 
 printed. I went home that uight alter listen- 
 ing to it and my sleep was troul)led by the 
 ringing of that knell over our liberties because 
 a soldier's construction of that act had been 
 approved. We were told that we were in th6 
 last days of our existence, our doom was upon 
 us, and that when it was allowed to a soldier 
 to depart from the law, and when his departure 
 from it by an honest mistake of its construc- 
 tion was not censured by a committee, our 
 last hours were drawing nigh. 
 
 Mr. President, no free Government was 
 ever overthrown by an honest blunder. Read 
 the history of the world. Free institutions 
 and republican governments have not gone 
 under by honest mistakes and blunders. They 
 have been overthrown by artful intriguing 
 rascals, who have gained the public ear and 
 the popular favor by pretension to greater 
 purity than that of their fellows; artful in- 
 triguers who have undermined the foundations 
 of free institutions by pretending to defend 
 and maintain them. Why, sir, the liberties 
 of Rome were not stricken down by the mili- 
 tary usurpations of CtBsar ; they were finally 
 overcome by the artful intrigues of Augustus 
 
13 
 
 Caesar, who pretended to be the champion of 
 the Roman constitution, and who, observing 
 the forms of a republican government, estab- 
 lished, in fact, an imperial despotisrn. 
 
 The Senator from Missouri is exceedingly 
 hard on the soldier. He is exceedingly hard 
 on anybody that has served his country during 
 the war, as it seems to me. But, Mr. Presi- 
 dent, I apprehend no danger such as seems to 
 be feared by him. My fear of the perpetuity 
 of our institutions does not arise from blun- 
 ders committed by a bluff", honest soldier. If 
 we ever go under, we are to go under by the 
 instrumentality and manipulation of a set of 
 designing, artful men who stand out as the 
 models and champions of Republicanism, 
 purer than their associates, self-appointed 
 leaders to liberty and national grandeur. 
 
 The next point, Mr. President, considered 
 in the report, is whether the sale of these arms 
 was made under such circumstances as to 
 amount to a violation of our neutral duties 
 pending the war between France and Germany. 
 The close, compact, protracted, patient, and 
 overwhelming argument of the Senator from 
 Massachusetts on that point I have already 
 referred to. As that Senator is understood to 
 be a champion of the law of nations, as he was 
 once, I understand, a teacher of that law, and 
 as he has assumed in this Senate for ten years 
 to silence every man's private opinion on the 
 subject by his ipse dixit, let me read again his 
 great argument upon the pointof international 
 law maintained by the committee : 
 
 "I present this report as unworthy of the Senate 
 in every respect, wanting in ordinary fairness, un- 
 becoming in tone, unjust to Senators who had deemed 
 it their duty to move the inquiry, and ridlcuLout in 
 i>H attempt to expound international laxo." 
 
 '•Ridiculous" is all that the Senator from 
 Massachusetts condescends to say in reply to 
 the report of the committee. It is fortunate 
 that an adjective does not amount to an argu- 
 ment. If it did, I should never stand up to 
 oppose the Senator from Massachusetts nor 
 the Senator from Missouri, no matter what 
 they tried to establish, for such a command 
 of adjectives I never knew to belong to any 
 two men before. 
 
 What; is the doctrine of this report upon this 
 suV'jpct which is pronounced " ridiculous, " 
 and which is worthy of no other answer? The 
 report says: 
 
 "4. Were the sales made under sue* circumstances 
 as to violate the obligations of the United States as 
 •a neutral Power pending tho war between France 
 and Germany ? 
 
 " Thissubjectinvolves two questions, one in regard 
 to the law applicable to the transactions, or the 
 question of what the Government might do under 
 such circumstances, and the other a question of 
 fact — what was done, <&c. 
 
 " Congress having, by the act of 1868, directed the 
 Secretary of War to dispose of these arms and stores, 
 and the Government being engaged in such sales 
 prior to the war between Franco and Germany, had 
 aright to continue the same during the war, and 
 might, iu the city of Washington, have sold and 
 delivered any amount of such stores lo Frederick 
 
 William or Louis Napoleon in person, without vio- 
 lating the obligations of neutrality, provided such 
 sales were made in good faith, not for the purpose 
 of influencing the strife, but in execution of the law- 
 ful purpose of tho Government to sell its surphits 
 arms and stores." 
 
 That is the doctrine of the committee, dis- 
 posed of by the Senator from Massachusetta 
 with one word, "ridiculous;" disposed of by 
 the Senator from Missouri almost as sum- 
 marily, although, not to bean imitator, he used 
 the word "atrocious," I think, or "abomin- 
 able;" I am not certain which. The precise 
 point between us is, whether a nation at peace 
 and in the pursuit of a perfectly lawful busi- 
 ness, as, for instance, the manufacture of 
 arras, or war-ships, or cartridges, or anything 
 else, is compelled to suspend its business 
 because two nations somewhere on the globe 
 engage in a war. That is the single question. 
 The Senator answers this question in the 
 affirmative; the report in the nej;ative. Now, 
 at the expense of being a little tedious, I shall 
 present the authorities which I have found, 
 since this report was made on this subject, 
 and I will ask the Secretary first to read the 
 extracts from the report which are marked 
 and which are taken from the work of Vat- 
 tel on international law. The Senator from 
 Massachusetts and the Senator from Missouri, 
 while they fell with oyerwhelming array of 
 adjectives upon the doctrine enunciated by 
 the committee, took good care not lo say one 
 disrespectful word ot Vattel, whose book sus- 
 tains every point made by the committee. 
 
 The Chief Clerk read as follows: 
 
 First, no act on the part of a nation which falls 
 within the exercise of her rights and is done solely 
 with a view to her own good, without partiality, 
 without a design of favoring one Power to the prtju- 
 diee of another — no act of that kind, I say, can in 
 general be considered as contrary to neutrality ; nor 
 does it become such, except on particular occasions, 
 when it cannot t^ke place without injury to one of 
 the parties, who has then a particular right to ap- 
 pose it. Thus the besieger has a right to prohibit 
 access to the place of the besieged, (see section one 
 hundred and seventeen in the sequel.) E.xcept in 
 cases of this nature shall the quarrels of others de- 
 prive me of the free exercise of my rights in the 
 pursuit of measures which I judge advantageous to 
 my people? Therefore, when it is the custom of a 
 nation, for the purpose of employing and training 
 her subjects, to permit levies of troops in favor of a 
 particular Power ' " 
 
 Mr. CARPENTER. I call attention to 
 that phraseology, " when it is the custom of 
 a nation," not the subjects of a nation, but a 
 nation. 
 
 The Chief Clerk continued the reading as 
 follows : 
 
 " ' Therefore, when it is the custom of a nation, for 
 the purpose of employing and training her sub- 
 jects, to permit levies of troops iu favor of a par- 
 ticular Power to whom she thinks proper to intrust 
 them, the enemy of that Power cannot look upon 
 such permissions as acts of hostility unless they are 
 given with a view to the invasion of his territories 
 or the support of an odious and evidently unjust 
 cause, lie cannot even demand, as matter of right, 
 that the like favor be granted to him, because that 
 natiou may have reasons for refusing him which 
 
14 
 
 do not hold good with regard to his adversary ; and 
 it belongs to that nation alnne to judge of what best 
 suits her circumstances. The Swit/.ers, as we have 
 already observed, gr.int levies of troops to whom 
 they please; and no Power has hitherto thought fit 
 to quarrel with them on that head. It must, bow- 
 ever, be owned'" * * * * "'that if 
 those levies were considerable and constituted the 
 principal strength of my enemy, while, without any 
 substantial reason being alleged, I were absolutely 
 refused all levies whatever, I sliould have just cause 
 to consider that nation as leagued with my enemy; 
 and in this case the care of my own safety would 
 authorize me to treat her as such. 
 
 ■' ' The case is the same with respect to money which 
 a nation may have been accustomed to lend out at 
 interest. If the sovereign, or his subjects, lend 
 money to my enemy on that footing, and refuse it 
 to me because they have not the same confidence in 
 me, this is no breach of neutrality. They lodge their 
 property where they think it safest. If such prefer- 
 ence be not founded on good reasons' — 
 
 " Here he comes back to the precise point — 
 
 " ' I may impute it to ill will against me, or to a 
 predilection for my enemy. Yet if I should make 
 it a pretense for declaring war, both the true prin- 
 ciples of the law of nations and the general custom 
 happily established in Europe would join in con- 
 demning me. While it appears that this nation 
 lends out her money purely for the sake of gaining 
 an interest upon it, she is at liberty to dispose of it 
 according to her own discretion, and I have no right 
 to comphiin. But if the loan were evidently granted 
 for the purpose of enabling an enemy to attack me, 
 this would be concurring in the war against me. 
 
 " ' If the troops above alluded to were furnished to 
 my enemy by tiie State herself, and at her own ex- 
 pense, or the money in like manner lent by the State, 
 without interest, it would no longer be a doubtful 
 question whether such assistance were incompatible 
 with neutrality. 
 
 "■ Further, it may bo affirmed on the same prin- 
 oiples that if a nation trades in arms, timber tor ship- 
 building, vessels, and warlike stores, I cannot take 
 it amiss that she sells such things to my enemy, pro- 
 vided she docs not refuse to sell them to me also at 
 a reasonable price. She carries on her trade without 
 any design to injure me; and by continuing in the 
 same manner as if I were not engaged in war, she 
 gives me no just cause of complaint, 
 
 ■"In what I have said above, it is supposed that my 
 enemy goes himself to a neutral country to make his 
 purchases.' " 
 
 Mr. CARPENTER. I want to call the 
 attention of the Senate to that precise point. 
 ThiCre is a broad distinction in all the author 
 ities between trade in a neutral State by the 
 belligerent and the contraband -of- war trade 
 which is carried on from neutral territory to 
 the i)oits of the belligerent, and the precise 
 distinction is staled clearly by the author 
 there. 
 
 The Chief Clerk continued reading as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 " ' In what I have said above, it is supposed that 
 my enemy goes himself to a neutral country to make 
 his purchases. Let us now discuss another case — 
 that of neutral nations resorting to my enemy's 
 country for commercial purposes. It is certain, as 
 they have no part in my quarrel, they are under no 
 obligation to renounce their commerce for the sake 
 of avoiding to supply my enemy with the means of 
 carrying on the war against me. Should they atfect 
 to refuse selling me a single article, while at the 
 same time they take pains to convey an abundant 
 gui>i>ly to my enemy, with an evident intention to 
 favor him, such partial conduct would exclude them 
 from the neutrality they enjoyed. But if they only 
 continue their customary trade, they do not thereby 
 declare themselves against any interest; they only 
 exercise a right which they are under no obligation 
 of sacrificing to me.'" 
 
 Mr. CARPENTER. At the suggestion of 
 my honorable colleague I wish here to call the 
 attention of the Senate to the distinction be- 
 tween the law of nations on the subject of 
 neutrality and the municipal law of a j)arlicu- 
 lar nation passed in the interest of its own 
 policy of neutrality. Our laws, passed upon 
 this subject and the subsequent act passed by 
 Great Britain in imitation of them, were mu- 
 nicipal laws, and made necessary because the 
 law of nations did not cover the same ground ; 
 yet in all our discussions in regard to the 
 neutral obligations of our nation there is a 
 complete confusion as to our duty under the 
 law of nations and the duty of our citizens 
 under our own municipal statutes. That dis- 
 tinction should always be borne in mind. 
 Neither Prussia nor France nor any foreign 
 nation can complain of us that our municipal 
 law has not been enforced, provided the law 
 of nations has been respected. Prussia, for 
 instance, has no interest in our statute, no 
 right to insist upon it. If we performed toward 
 her all the obligations that the law of nations 
 imposed upon a neutral, it is non6 of her busi- 
 ness or concern that our municipal statute is 
 trampled under foot by our own people every 
 day of the year. 
 
 I have caused these extracts from Vattel to 
 be read which lay down the doctrine adopted 
 by the report. Indeed, after putting that par- 
 agraph into the report, I should have been 
 subject to the charge of plagiarism if I had 
 not quoted from the authority that sustained 
 it. The paragraphs which are assailed here 
 as "ridiculous" and " atrocious" are merely 
 a condensation of the doctrine of Vattel on 
 this subject. 
 
 This subject is not entirely new in this 
 country. I refer now to the first volume of 
 American State Papers, the volume on foreign 
 relations, page 649, in the letter of Timothy 
 Pickering, then Secretary of State, to the 
 minister of France, who had made complaint 
 of this country that the British were permitted 
 to buy horses here for military service. A 
 general discussion of the subject took place 
 between the French minister and the Secre- 
 tary of State. The letter which I refer to is 
 dated May 15, 1796, page 649, first volume 
 Slate Papers, in regard to foreign relations. 
 In reply to the French minister's communica- 
 tion the Secretary of Slate says : 
 
 "Referring to Vattel, book three, chapter seven, 
 (the object of which entire chapter is to delineate 
 the rights and duties of neutrality) your first re- 
 mark is, that the one hundred and thirteenth sec- 
 tion, which you quoted, has bo relation to the one 
 hundred and tenth cited by me. But permit me to 
 observe, that it would be anovel mode of interpret- 
 ing an author to take up a single paragraph and 
 detach it from all his other remarks and reasonings 
 in the same chapter, and on the same subject. 
 Doubtless (as the same author says elsewhere) "we 
 ought to consider the whole discourse together, in 
 order perfectly to conceive the sense of it.' (Book 
 two, chapter seventeen, section two hundred and 
 eighty-five.) In both the sectionscited (one hundred 
 aud ton and one hundred and thirteen.)"— 
 
15 
 
 These are the sections which I have caused 
 to be read, and this is the construction which 
 our Secretary of State put u^on them — 
 
 "la both the sections cited (one hundred and ten 
 and one hundred and thirteen) the right of neutrals 
 to trade in articles contraband of war ia clearly 
 established" — 
 
 Mark here, for this is the precise distinc- 
 tion between what a nation may do, as Vattel 
 expresses it, on its own territory, and what its 
 subjects may do beyond its boundaries — 
 
 " In both the sections cited (one hundred and ten 
 and one hundred and thirteen) the right of neutrals 
 to trade in articles contraband of war is clearly 
 established; in the first, by selling to the warring 
 Powers" — 
 
 Not to somebody to export directly to the 
 warring Power — 
 
 "who come to the neutral country to buy them; 
 in the second, by the neutral subjects or citizens 
 carrying them to the countries of the Powers at war, 
 and there selling them." 
 
 Mr. SCHURZ. Who writes that? 
 
 Mr. CARPENTER. That was by a Sec- 
 retary of State of the United States in 1796, 
 Timothy Pickering. Not only does Vattel in 
 language too plain to be misunderstood lay 
 down this distinction, but here we find the same 
 doctrine insisted upon, enforced, and main-' 
 tained by our own State Department in 1796. 
 He then refers to the work of Galliani on this 
 subject and says, commenting upon book one 
 and quoting from it: 
 
 " Much greater is the number of those who be- 
 lieved that every belligerent Power possesses essen- 
 tially the right of forbidding neutral Powers to sell 
 arms and warlike stores to its enemy; and that this 
 is a full right, that is, a right of strict justice. They 
 do not distinguish the circumstance, when the neu- 
 tral Powers carry on trade with one of the belliger- 
 ents, and supply it with arms and warlike stores, 
 and when, with perfectimpartiality, they trade with 
 both. In the first ease, the preference of one party 
 is apparent, and thenceforward the slighted and 
 neglected party begins to possess a right in regard 
 of the neutral State, for friendship with it is at an 
 end ; but as in the other case friendship does not 
 appear to have ceased, there is not yetto be discov- 
 ered any reason to act iuimically on this account 
 toward a friend. 
 
 " And, in truth, this reflection has le<l many writ- 
 ers to conclude that neutral Powers cannot be for- 
 bidden to exercise a free trade, even in contraband, 
 as long as they exercise it in an impartial manner 
 with both belligerent parties, or are willing to do so. 
 I, too, can not say that they decide very unjustly." 
 
 Again, the Secretary of State, after citing 
 these authorities, sums up as follows: 
 
 " Then follow what the author states as the true 
 positions of this matter, some of which you have 
 cited: , . , . ,, 
 
 ■■ 1. When a belligerent nation desires a friendly 
 neutral nation to carry no contraband to its enemy, 
 it must formally disclose its wish, silence importing 
 a satisfaction in the natural state of things," 
 
 I regret exceedingly that ray strength will 
 not permit me to pursue this letter further, but 
 it draws precisely the distinction, and bases 
 it upon these authorities, which is maintained 
 by this report, the distinction between our own 
 nation inside its own territory and the rights 
 of our citizens who go beyond our jurisdic- 
 
 tion with privilege to trade, subject to all the 
 exigencies of war, with one of the belligerent 
 Powers. 
 
 All that the law of nations requires of any 
 nation in the particular of neutrality, as the 
 authors all sum it up, is impartiality ; what 
 you do to one you shall do to another. Some 
 books have said that within the meaning of 
 this rule you caunot send an equal amount of 
 troops to one nation and to the other, because 
 that is a particular in which it is impossible to 
 be impartial between the two. That is made 
 the exception to the rule ; but where the nation 
 throws open its shops, its markets, to both 
 belligerents for the purpose of trade, whether 
 it be ships of war, or cannon, or cartridges, or 
 other munitions for military service, neither 
 has a right to complain. It is only, according 
 to these authorities, when the neutral Power 
 furnishes one belligerent and refuses to furnish 
 the other that there is any cause of com- 
 plaint ; and here this author lays it down that 
 if either of the belligerent Powers wishes to 
 restrain the neutral Power from that, it ia the 
 duty of that nation first to give notice to the 
 neutral and request hira not to make such 
 sales. 
 
 Apply this doctrine to the case in hand as 
 we all know it, what was the position of Ger- 
 many here? These sales were being made 
 openly by the Government, under advertise- 
 ment, as everybody knew. The German min- 
 ister here, understanding that these sales were 
 going on, as it is said, informed his Govern- 
 ment of that fact, asked for instructions on 
 the matter, was informed by the German chan- 
 cellor that there was no violation of law in it, 
 further informed that the German nation did not 
 wish to buy any arms here ; no objection was 
 made, no protest, not the slightest opposition 
 offered to the sale of these arms on the part of 
 the Government, although it was alleged that 
 sales were to agents of France. The case as 
 made by the German minister to his own Gov- 
 ernment assumes one of the points in dispute 
 here, but he put the case upon the ground 
 that the sales were being made to agents of 
 France, as I shall have occasion to show 
 hereafter. 
 
 During the war between France and Prussia 
 the workshops of England were open to both 
 belligerents. During the rebellion in this 
 country both North and South obtained arms 
 in England, manufactured in the armories of 
 England. Both parties being recognized as 
 belligerents were allowed to trade in cannon, 
 in muskets, in ammunition, in all the supplies 
 of war ; and nobody, that I know of, has com- 
 plainjwi that, conceding the belligerency of both 
 parties, there was any violation of neutrality 
 in those sales. 
 
 Mr. SCHURZ. Will the Senator permit 
 me to put a question to him? 
 
 Mr. CARPENTER. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. SCHURZ. Does he state that daring 
 
16 
 
 the pendency of the war between France and 
 Germany the English Government manufac- 
 tured for and sold arms to either of the 
 belligerents ? 
 
 Mr. CARPENTER. I have not stated that. 
 
 Mr. SCHURZ. I understood the Senator 
 to say that the English armory was manufac- 
 turing arms for sale at that time ? 
 
 Mr. CARPENTER. I said no such thing. 
 
 Mr. SCUURZ. Then I misunderstood the 
 Senator. 
 
 Mr. CARPENTER. Mr. President, as a 
 part of this discussion, and an important propo- 
 sition to be considered in connection with this 
 subject and in connection with the distinction 
 which I am making between what a neutral 
 Government may do inside of its own territory 
 and what its subjects may do abroad, let me 
 remark that the whole subject of contraband 
 of war relates to maritime law. There is no 
 such thing as contraband of war inside of neu- 
 tral territory ; there cannot be. Munitions of 
 war only become contraband of war when 
 they become the subject of foreign commerce. 
 In the sixth Massachusetts Reports, in a well- 
 considered opinion of Chief Justice Parsons, 
 than whom no sounder or clearer or more ac- 
 curate lawyer ever sat on an American bench 
 or the bench of any other country, we find the 
 definition of contraband of war. I quote from 
 page 114 of the sixth volume of Massachusetts 
 Reports : 
 
 " Goods contraband of war are of two descrip- 
 tions: munitions of war, the property of a neutral, 
 bound from a neutral port to the territory of either 
 of the belligerents, after the existence of the war is 
 known; and every species of neutral goods bound 
 from a neutral port to a port belonging to either of 
 the Powers at war, and known to be blockaded by 
 the other Power. Theprinciple, therefore, on which 
 a belligerent will capture and condemn as prize the 
 goods of a neutral bound to a port known by him to 
 be blockaded arises from the consideration that 
 all such goods are contraband of war." 
 
 And therefore these arms, these muskets, 
 these cartridges, all the munitions which have 
 been referred to, while they were upon our 
 own territory were not contraband of war, 
 and the whole doctrine, authorities, and decis- 
 ions relating to that subject did not apply to 
 them until they passed beyond the exclusive 
 jurisdiction of the United States and became 
 the subject of foreign commerce. To show 
 that the fact, if it were conceded, that these 
 sales were made to known and authorized 
 agents of France would not have violated 
 our neutral obligations, I read from a letter 
 of Mr. Jefferson found in the third volume of 
 Jefferson's Works, page 558: 
 
 "The purchase of arms and military accouter- 
 ments by an agent of the French Government, in 
 this country, with an intent to export them to 
 France, is the subject of another of the memorials. 
 Of this fact wo are equally uninformed as^ of the 
 former. Our citizens have been always free to make, 
 ▼ end, and export arms." 
 
 He is speaking here of a sale by the citizens 
 and not by the Government, because that was 
 
 the case before him. The difference between 
 the writers on this subject and the Senator 
 from Missouri is that they talk to the case and 
 never deliver general essays on other subjects 
 not connected with the matter in hand. 
 
 " It is the constant ocuupation and livelihood of 
 some of them. To suppress their callings, the only 
 means perhaps of their subsistence, because a war 
 exists in foreign and distant countries in which we 
 have no concern, would scarcely be expected. It 
 would bo hard in principle, and impossible in pr.ic- 
 tice. The law of nations, therefore, respecting the 
 rights of those at peace, docs not require from them 
 such an internal derangement in their occupations. 
 It is satisfied with the external penalty pronounced 
 in the President's proclamation, that of confiscation 
 of such portion of these arms as shall fall into the 
 hands of any of the belligerent Powers on their way 
 to the ports of their enemies. To this penalty our 
 citizens are warned that they will be abandoned; 
 and that even private contraventions may work no 
 inequality between the parties at war, the benefits 
 of them will be left equally free and open to all." 
 
 Upon this general subject I refer also to the 
 second volume of WiUlman's International 
 Law, at page 211, and I ask the Secretary to 
 read the passage I have marked. 
 
 The Chief Clerk read as follows: 
 
 " Goods going to a neutral port cannot come under 
 the description of contraband, inasmuch as all goods 
 with a neutral destination are equally lawful. So 
 it was held that a cargo could not come under the 
 •description of contraband which was innocently 
 shipped on board a vessel which sailed in bona fide 
 ignorance of war. Nor can any Question of contra- 
 band arise as to goods sold by neutrals in their own 
 country and not conveyed in neutral vessels. A 
 neutral may lawfully sell in his own country to a 
 belligerent arms, ammunition, and other articles 
 which would be contraband on board a neutral 
 vessel destined to a hostile port." 
 
 Mr. CARPENTEit. I will now refer to 
 De Burgh upon international law. 
 
 Mr. SCHURZ. 1 would ask the Senator, 
 in order to obtain all the information I can 
 from him, how the quotation just read applies 
 to the case? 
 
 Mr. CARPENTER. I will have this read, 
 and then I will try to show the Senator, I 
 cannot do everything at once. 
 
 The Chief Clerk read as follows: 
 
 "Commerce on the part of a neutral with a bel- 
 ligerent country constitutes no otfense against the 
 law oi nations. Even where armed vessels or muni- 
 tions of war are the subjects of sale, the neutral 
 shipper of such articles is not, in the absence of spe- 
 cific treaty engagements, an offender against his 
 own sovereign, or liable to be punished by the 
 municipal laws of his own country. The transac- 
 tion is a commercial adventure, which no nation is 
 bound to prohibit, and which only exposes the per- 
 sons engaged in it to the penalty of confiscation. 
 To this extent it is unlawful, as itsubjects the prop- 
 erty to seizure by theother belligerents. But a neu- 
 tral nation is under no obligation whatever to inter- 
 fere to prevent its subjects trading in articles of 
 contraband with the subjects of a belligerent, pro- 
 vided that in so doing its conduct is marked by that 
 impartiality which should distinguish the transac- 
 tions of a neutral country in its relations with bel- 
 ligerent States. This is the language of all writers 
 of authority on this subject, and the point has been 
 explicitly confirmed by judicial decisions. 
 
 " A neutral nation, says Dr. Twiss, is not bound 
 to prohibit its subjects Irom trading in any article 
 whatsoever with merchants who frequent its ports, 
 and who may be the subjects of belligerent Powers ; 
 for the sovereignty of a neutral nation within its 
 
17 
 
 own territory is as absolute with regard to nations 
 ■which are at war with each other as in regard to na- 
 tions which maintain relations of peace with each 
 other. The duty of a neutral nation, as such, toward 
 belligerent nations is comprised in one word, impar- 
 tiality. It is not the duty ot a neutral nation, as such, 
 to undertake to prevent merchants who frequent its 
 ports from carrying out of itsjurisdiction the articles 
 which they may liave purchased on the ground that 
 those articles may bedestined to the usesof a belli- 
 gerent Power; it is the business of every belligerent 
 Power to enforce its rights of war, if it sees fit, on 
 the high seas, or within the enemy's territory. A 
 neutral nation may indeed bind itself by treaty en- 
 gagements with a belligerent nation not to allow any 
 mer'^hants to purchase within its jurisdiction certain 
 articles if they are to be carried to the ports of the 
 adverse belligerent; but the observance of such 
 treaty engagements wi'l beiiiconsistcntwith neutral- 
 ity unless the neutral nation should apply the same 
 prohibition equally to all merchants intending to 
 carry such article to the ports of either belligerent. 
 It is not, however, the i)ractice of natioi.s to under- 
 take to prohibit by tlieir territorial laws merchants 
 from purchasing in their ports those articles which a 
 belligerent Power may confiscate to its own uses, 
 jure belli, if it finds them on the high seas in the 
 course of transport to the ports of the enemy, much 
 less is it the practice of neutral nations to confiscate 
 such articlesatter purchase while they are within its 
 jurisdiction. A belligerent alone has any right, j'lo-e 
 belli, to take possejsiou of that which is the property 
 of another person. 
 
 "To a similar efifect is the opinion of Kluber, who 
 observed, on the received custom of European na- 
 tions, to allow the suijjects of a b,elligerent to pur- 
 chase from a neutral Power articles which serve 
 for immediate use in war, provided that the pur- 
 chase is made in the neutral country by the belliger- 
 ents and reported by them. And a modern French 
 writeron public law, M. Ortolan, in maintaining the 
 same doctrine, remarked that to allow the subjects 
 of either belligerent to come and purchase articles 
 in a neutral market does not constitute a violation 
 of neutrality; for a neutral nation cannot be re- 
 sponsible for the ultimate uses to which such arti- 
 cles may be applied, nor is it bound to know for 
 whom they are bought, or what destination is re- 
 served for them. Tlie judgments of the Supreme 
 Court and the opinion ot the Attorney General of 
 the United States have assisted to uphold and even 
 to extend this rule, as to the operation of which 
 Chancellor Kent remarks that it was successfully 
 shown by the United States, in opposition to the 
 contention of the French Government in 1796, that 
 neutralsmay lawfully sell at home to a belligerent 
 purchaser or carry themselves to the belligerent 
 Powers contraband articles subject to the right of 
 seizure in trunsiUc, a doctrine which had received 
 the express recognition of the judicial authorities 
 in America." — Be Burgh. 
 
 Mr. CARPENTER. As I remarked before, 
 this is not a question in regard to contraband 
 of war; yet the authorities mingle the two 
 subjects so that it is impossible to consult 
 them upon the one subject without also read- 
 ing what they say upon the other. But the 
 precise point which I am trying here to estab- 
 lish — the distinc'ion between what the nation 
 as such may do in its own territory and what 
 it may perhaps not do beyond its territory, 
 but its subjects may — is sustained in clear lan- 
 guarge by this authority which has just been 
 read. " The duty of a neutral nation as such ;" 
 that is, as a nation "toward belligerent 
 nations" is comprised in one word — impar- 
 tiality. It is not the duty of a neutral nation, as 
 such, to undertake to prevent merchants who 
 frequents its ports from carrying out of its 
 jurisdiction the articles which they may have 
 
 purchased, on the ground that those articles 
 may be destined to the use of a belligerent 
 Power." Taking that as a correct statement 
 of the doctrine — and here I may say that this 
 authority refers to the decisiotis of our own 
 Supreme Court, and the decisions in Massa- 
 chusetts, and the writings of various element- 
 ary writers, on pages 117, 118, and 119, which 
 have been read — assuming this to be the 
 true doctrine, let me come now to ask — and 
 every piiiiciple of international law must have 
 some reason to rest upon, or it is no princi- 
 ple — if a nation may (and this authority says 
 it may) allow the merchatits or agents of 
 France to come into this country and buy 
 munitions of war for use by the French nation, 
 what reason is there in saying that the Gov- 
 ernment itself, if it be a dealer in such com- 
 modities, may not in its own territory do what 
 it may authorize its merchants to do and pro- 
 tect them in doing? 
 
 The distinction which is attempted to be 
 made by the Senators from Massachusetts and 
 Missouri rests upon the tnere accident of lan- 
 guage. The cases wiiich have been discussed 
 have been cases of contraband of war, such 
 being the subji-cts under discussion by prize 
 courts; and most of the writers, treating of 
 cases where the citizens of a neutral have 
 trafficked with the belligerent nation or the 
 subjects of a belligerent nation, the language 
 of these courts and writers relates to such 
 traffic ; but when you rise above the mere tech- 
 nicalities of the question, when you seek for 
 a principle upon which a nation may stand, 
 and which it may vindicate with the extreme 
 argument of war, and which need only to be 
 right and sound in reason, I defy any man to 
 show why within our own limits the nation may 
 not as well sell arms to a French agent as to 
 authorize me to do so and protect me in doing 
 so, because as a citizen of the United Slates 
 exercising lawful trade it is the duty of my 
 Government to protect me while lam so doing, 
 and while I confine my operations to the ter- 
 ritory of its sovereignty. 
 
 Mr. SCHURZ. Will the Senator permit 
 me to ask a question in order to understand 
 him correctly V 
 
 Mr. CARPENTER. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. SCHURZ. Did he say that the case 
 which he quoted from and the other quotations 
 he made referred to trade carried on by private 
 citizens, by subjects of a neutral nation, as 
 commercial ventures; or did he quote any 
 case in which the Government made such sales 
 directly? 
 
 Mr. CARPENTER. The honorable Sen- 
 ator from Missouri is not a dull man, and he is 
 entirely capable of comprehending what is said 
 in ordinary plainness of language ; and I must 
 therefore suppose that I am unusually stupid 
 to-day if I cannot make hiin conipreheiid what 
 I said upon that subject without repeating it. 
 What I said was this, that in principle whea 
 
you Jeftthe cases, when you departed from the 
 
 techmcal.ty of the decisions whiU must Xays 
 be confined to the particular facts before the 
 court, and rose to princii,les upon which the 
 nation m,ght stand and which they mi'ht 
 defend by force, because founded in reasSn 
 Tne'dTtr ^™"^^ 'T '^^ <^-'-ction Tain.' 
 I i^IpJ^ r r ^ '^'*'. ^.^^ ""'■ Government and 
 a sale made by our citizens, both sales beins 
 made within our territory ^ 
 
 I then said that the language of the books 
 was confaned to contraband commerce, because 
 the cases which had been treated of beloTged 
 to that class; but that in principle no dis inc 
 tion could be maintained between a sale of 
 arms made by the United States upon their 
 
 rercha^ntl"?.-" '''' "^'^^ "^^ ^ ^™«'^'a" 
 merchant within our own country. The au- 
 thorities clearly establish that an American 
 manufacturer mi^htin this country ifave Txe 
 cuted an order from the Governm' nt of Ger- 
 many or France for cannon, arms, or other 
 munitions of war, pending the war between 
 matter of T"'"'% ^•^"' ^''^^ I maintain as 
 
 tbeUnitedbtates may authorize their merchants 
 to do, and protect them in doing, may be done 
 by the United States themselv! . What dif 
 
 the'nrutraTr'"''^''^'^^ ^^''«--^' ^^^^h ' 
 me neutral Government sells its surplus arms 
 
 to an agent of the other belligerent, o firs To 
 
 t'haTTe rin'M'l'""^'^' ^-"'^3' knowing 
 that he will sell them to such agent? And 
 
 Drotfo L"^^ sel toHsown merchants and 
 protect them in selling within the territory of 
 
 io^,"' wf ' ;° '^'' f-^'-"f °^ ^ •^el'igerent'^na- 
 t on. What may lawfully be done hy indirec- 
 t on may lawfully be done by direct and open 
 
 tseTf'' sr '" It r.''' «^' '- GoveiimS 
 tself. Suppose the United States, looking to 
 he pohcy of keeping i„ operation all the 
 
 munition "if''' ^'^ T'-^'^^'^'^-S arms and 
 munitions of war, the training of skilled 
 
 immbe^'of^ '"'^ "" ^'^1' «''°^'^ establish a 
 St to ?,f ^^'"'^^^'^s ^"d manufactories sulfi- 
 Cient to turn out a vast supply of munitions 
 of war beyond what was requi,4d for ou own 
 use with the intention of selling the surplus 
 to foreign nations. Such a proceeding would 
 be entirely lawful on the part of this Govern 
 ment under the international code. Now the 
 
 may So'^itr '•.' ^-"^"^"^ '^^^^ what a TatSn 
 worW i, J "'• °''° '"'■""^'•y ^'^en the 
 
 world IS at peace, It may do wuhin its own 
 
 vided that in prosecuting its customary busi- 
 eereVt ?ZT'' 'T/'^^'^J''^ ^^^^ard thebell - 
 Franc^eTm r'- ^^' ^""^'"^ a war between 
 rrance and Germany, or France and England 
 
 and^shoufd'::;r.'^' ^ '^''r ^^'•'••- «f' "'; 
 
 se 1 to th.lh" K^r""' ^"^ «liO"lcl -refuse to 
 son for «n ? ^" ^^l''.g^'-«"^ without good rea- 
 Bon for such discr.minuiion, founded in m-ior 
 treaty, or resting upon other suthcient grounds 
 
 then the proscribed belligerent would ha' 
 cause of complaint. But while our Gover 
 ment was wiUuig to sell to either belHgere 
 r;iaT.^''^^^^«^^^'^^---ither^c": 
 
 Uni'f Jd T'r^"^ l^^t pending such war tl 
 Utiited States might sell their surplus arms c 
 
 our own soil to our own merchants and th. 
 
 such .merchants could sell to an ^g ^^'t of eith 
 
 i.no^K^'^'F'''"''' ^"^ that a neiatral St a 
 ore bv"it«^ '' ''"P the exportation of warli 
 
 stores by Its own merchants when it is notr 
 
 ortL^'h' Ir'' ""'' '^^^■■"-^ ^^ be us d by" on 
 of the belligerents. There is therefore n 
 ground whatever, in reason or expediency fo 
 the distinction which is attempted'to be main 
 
 Senator ^'■* ^'Tf.^d^^t'. i" the speech of th, 
 bet ator from Missouri the other evening 
 
 cha;;etr.Mr ^"^,^'-^-"y toabando7th, 
 Charge that these sales were made in violaliot 
 
 Mr'sPRnP? ""S^"" '^'' '^" of nations! 
 Mr. bCHURZ. Not at all. 
 
 Mr. CARPENTER. He says " not at all " 
 
 that^Xse^'f 1 '^ '" '^^"T^"^ "^« t« «J^o- 
 that these sales were made under such cir- 
 
 n'^°u'^',f;' to be in violation of the rule 
 7o^r'Veu7'' Department had established 
 lor Itself during the continuance of the 
 
 wa "thaPthrd" "T-- ^''^V'^^ -"'-ded for 
 ^v thl i . '^"■^'l^?" which had been given 
 by the Secretary of War to his subordinates 
 mi wi' ^° ^'"i"gton had not been carried 
 out. Why, Mr. President, that order of the 
 
 tZT'f '\''\''' '^' subordinates wa a 
 bieath, and might be recalled by a breath Its 
 observance «r non-observance is a matter in 
 ce'n Thf'h'r" ^— -"terestor con 
 
 cieTi"on .f- .i!" J^ '"^J""^ ^^' "^'l^i" the dis- 
 c etion ot the Secretary of War; and if we 
 
 e?Ibn t ",\"^">^^' obligations as' fixed and 
 established by the law of nations, no foreign 
 Power had any right to inquire into the ob 
 servance or non-observance of our internal 
 municipal regulations. "uernai 
 
 .n?nT' ^^'""^ "^'"^-^^^ Government do? I shall 
 spend no more time on the question of what 
 ^ had a right to do. What did it do? The 
 Government went on selling arms to everv- 
 body who came until the 13th of OctJbeT, 
 ia 0. On the morning of that day it made 
 deIiv'?'/'''\'° Remington & Sons, to be 
 delivered subsequently as the arms could 
 be CO lected from the arsenals and different 
 depositaries of the United States. At a sub- 
 sequent interview on that day, Mr Squire 
 Seorft'"' Vw ^''^'^'^Stons, exhibited to h^ 
 YoTk [o t^^^p^\^«le.g'--'" from Ilion, New 
 lorlf, to W C. Squire at the Arlin.'toB 
 House, Washington, Remington being ia 
 !• ranee, as follows- ^ 
 
 
19 
 
 to appraisement. Speculators in arms intended for 
 France will find their profits small. Compeiilion 
 ■witb you has been forced and fictitious." 
 
 From this telegram, unexplained, the Secre- 
 tary of War interred that the lleniinglons were 
 buying arms as the agents of the French Gov- 
 ernment ; and in over-caution, the exercise of 
 a prudence which was not required by law, the 
 Sjecreiary of War directed that no further sales 
 should be made to Remington. Tlie Secretary 
 of War in taking that position was, as I say, 
 doing whathe was not required to do. He went 
 far beyond the requirement of international 
 law, because the Government had a perfect 
 right to sell these arms to either of the belli- 
 gerents, as I have shown by the authorities 
 which I have read. 
 
 After the ISih of October the Government 
 made no sales whatever to Remington, or to 
 any person known to be an agent of Reming- 
 ton or acting in his interest; altiiough subse- 
 quent to the 13th of October the Government 
 did execute the contract which it had made 
 on the morning of that day, before the Secre- 
 tary had seen this telegram, by a delivery of 
 the arms. That is all the Government did. 
 
 Now let us inquire whether Remington was 
 in fact an agent of France on the 13lh of 
 October. 
 
 Mr. SCHURZ rose. 
 
 Mr. CARPENTER. I am not on a ques- 
 tion of law now, and I must decline to be 
 interrupted. 
 
 Mr. SCHURZ. On a question of fact. 
 
 Mr. CARPENTER. 1 do not yield on a 
 matter of fact. I decline to do so because it 
 would lead to an interminable debate, and I 
 am too ill to endure it. 
 
 Now, was Remington an agent of France? 
 This iiivesligaiiou clearly shows that he was not 
 at the time these sales were made. The house 
 of Remington & Sons had been for years 
 engaged in the manufacture and sale of arms ; 
 they had been contractors with various na- 
 tions, as shown by the testimony of Squire, 
 and for many years ; and in October, 1870, 
 they were contractors of arms to the French 
 Government. They were not the agents of the 
 French Government in any proper sense. The 
 contract between them and the French Gov- 
 ernment was that they should deliver arms to 
 France for a certain percentage above what 
 the arms cost them in this country. From 
 that the Senator infers that they were agents 
 of France ; but that is not a legitimate infer 
 ence. Merchants dealing with each other 
 upon commission sustain the relation of prin- 
 cipal and agent or not, according to the facts 
 and circumsiances of each case. The mere 
 fact that a cotn mission is paid does not determ- 
 ine the question. 
 
 To make out that Remington was an agent 
 of France, it must be shown that if Remington 
 had bought a portion of these arms in Wash- 
 ington upon credit, and had promised to pay 
 
 in thirty days, and yet, after he had purchased 
 these arms and taken possession of them, he 
 had sold them to somebody else, or thrown 
 them away, Fiance would have been liable to 
 us, because her agent had contracted with us, 
 and his contract was her contract, and whether 
 she ever gat the arms or not was a question 
 between her and her agent. No such relations 
 existed between France ami Remington, iiena- 
 ington bought the arms here undoubtedly for 
 the purpose of fulttUing his contract with 
 France; but he bought ih^m in his own right 
 as an American citizen and not as an agent of 
 France, and the testimony of Mr. Squire upon 
 this subject, found at page 23 of tlie report, is 
 perfectly conclusive. He also testifies that 
 later in the year, in December, 1870, long 
 after the sales had been made, one of the Rem- 
 ingtons did become an agent of France, com- 
 missioned by letters from the French Govern- 
 ment, and that he thereupon received the 
 French funds in New York, and acted openly 
 as their agent. 
 
 This subject of the sale of arms, under the 
 legal aspect of the case, may be summed up 
 as follows: in the first place, I maintain, as 
 established from these autlioriiies, what the 
 report contends for, that if these sales had 
 been made by our Government directly to an 
 agent of the belligerent or to the sovereign 
 of either belligerent in person, in the city of 
 Washington, the law of nations would not 
 have been violated. 
 
 In the second place, I maintain that this 
 proof shows that our Government never did 
 sell a gun to a man known to be an agent of 
 the French Government. 
 
 In the third place, 1 maintain that the men 
 to whom they did sell were not in fact agents 
 at the time the sale was made. 
 
 The next subject treated by the committee 
 was whether the sales of arms were fairly and 
 advantageously made. There is no question 
 in regard to this point. I do not understand 
 the Senator from Missouri to attack it at all. 
 The testimony is entirely conclusive. There 
 was a sale of what amounted to about ten 
 million dollars of jiroperty which in a series 
 of years would have become worthless or 
 would require lor repairs and preservation a 
 sum equal to th^ir value. They were sold by 
 our officials taking advantage of the market 
 and exercising their skill as tradesmen. They 
 were sold on advantageous terms and at price? 
 far higher than they would command to-day, 
 and the Government received $10,000,000 for 
 them. 
 
 The Senator from Missouri made a calcula- 
 tion, dividing this sum between the inhabitants 
 of the United States, and reached the conclu- 
 sion that what would be received by each inhab- 
 itant was too trifling to induce liira to consent 
 to a sale made under what he denominated 
 such ''fearlul risks." What fearful risks? 
 There was no danger of losing the good will 
 
20 
 
 of Prussia. Her officials had too much sense 
 to supj)Ose that we were duiiij; aiiylhing wrong 
 by selling our own property in our own coun- 
 try to any purchaser. Upon the former dis- 
 cussion of ibis subject the Senator from Mas- 
 sachusetts [Mr. Wilson] read a latter from 
 Mr. Spinner, Treasurer of the United States, 
 from which I ask that an extract may be read. 
 The Chief Clerk read as follows : 
 
 " Tkeasury uf thk United States, 
 Washington, February IG, 1872. 
 
 "My Dear Sie: It has Dccurred tome that the fol- 
 lowing tacis migbt be of interest to you, in connec- 
 tion with tlie debate which hastalsen place in regard 
 to the sale of arms by the United States to alleged 
 agents of the French Government during the late 
 war between France and Germany. 
 
 " During my European tour last summer. I saw in 
 several German newspapers a statement substan- 
 tially as follows : 
 
 "Baron Gerolt, it was said, had called the attention 
 of Prince Uismarck to the fact that agents ol the 
 French were large [lurchasersof arms and munitions 
 in the United tstates, which he was intbrmcd were 
 intended for the use of the French army of the Loire, 
 lielieving this to be in violation of both the law of 
 nations and treaty stipulations between Prussia and 
 the United States, he deemed it his duty to call the 
 attention of his Government to the facts and to ask 
 for instructions as to the course which he should 
 pursue. Should it, however, be concluded that his 
 judgment as to the violation of law and treaty 
 stipulations was erroneous, he desired to say that he 
 had been assured that he could prevent the arms in 
 question from going to France and obtain them for 
 his own Government, upon payment of an advance 
 of fifteen per cent, upon the price which the French 
 had agreed to pay. 
 
 "To this communication the German chancellor 
 was said to have replied that in his opinion, after 
 due examination and consideration, the reported 
 sales of arms to France were in violation of neither 
 the la_w of nations nor any treaty stipulations with 
 the United States, and that, as to the purchase of 
 the arms at an advance ot tilteen per cent, or at any 
 other rate, he saw no reason for authorizing it, since 
 the German trooi)s would doubtless be shortly able 
 to obtain them fur nothing by picking them up on 
 the banks of the Loire 1 " 
 
 Mr. CARPEN TER. Upon the question of 
 the legality of these sales I quote the chan- 
 cellor of Germany against the Senator from 
 Missouri. Bismarck was itifonned by the 
 German minister at Washington of what was 
 being done by our G')veriiinent, and was in- 
 quired of, first, whether he should make any 
 objection to it; and second, whether Prus- 
 sia desired to purchase any of the arms? 
 Bismarck, after due consideration, rejilied 
 that the sales were legal, were not in viola- 
 tion of the law of nations nor of any treaty 
 between the United States and Prussia, and 
 that Prussia did not desire to purchase any 
 of the arms, preferring the chance of picking 
 them lip on the banks of the Jjoire. What 
 risk, then, did we run? Possibly the Admin- 
 istration ran the risk of losing the support 
 and friendship of the Senator from Missouri. 
 That was, however, no risk at all, for ne was 
 lost to the Administration long before. But 
 if it were still an open question whether the 
 Government should realize $10,01)0.000 by a 
 perfectly legal sale of projierty that would 
 soon become worthless in order to retain to 
 
 the Administration the support of the Sena- 
 tor from Missouri, I should vote against paying 
 that sum for that purpose. [Laughter.] 
 
 What risk, then, did we run? None what- 
 ever. We exercised an undoubted right and 
 performed, a clear duly. We put $10,000,000 
 in the 'i'reasiiry, thus relieving to ihat extent 
 the tax-payers of the country. 
 
 Another subject investigated by the com- 
 mittee was whether any officer of the Govern- 
 ment had behaved improperly or profited per- 
 sonally in connection with these sales. No 
 time need be devoted to this point, because 
 the charge is now abandoned. Since the evi- 
 dence was taken it is not pretended by any 
 one that there was any improper or corrupt 
 conduct in these sales, or that any officer of 
 the Government derived any profit from them. 
 Every dollar that was received was paid into 
 tlie Treasury, and it is now admitted on all 
 sides that the supposed discrepancy of ac- 
 counts between the War and Treasury Depart- 
 ments had no existence in fact. 
 
 The committee were also instructed to inquire 
 " whether any member of the Senate, or any 
 other American citizen, is or has been in com- 
 munication or collusion with the Government 
 or authorities of any foreign Power, or with 
 any agent or officer thereof, in reference to 
 the matter of said sales." It was in that 
 branch of the investigation, I imagine, that 
 the committee incurred the wrath of the Sen- 
 ator from Massachusetts and the Senator from 
 Missouri. It appears that the ^larquis de 
 Chambrun, who does not shine so brilliantly 
 in the light of this teslmiony as he did in the 
 speeches of those Senators precedingthe invest- 
 igation, had been in Washington for some time 
 and exceedingly anxious to have an- investiga- 
 tion into this subject. It appears that he first 
 applied to the Senator from New Hampshire, 
 [Mr. Patterson,] and requested him to intro- 
 duce a resolution. After considering the 
 subject, Mr. Patterso.v informed him that 
 he had deter.iiined not to do it and for the 
 following among other reasons: 
 
 "Besides, I thought, as a friend of the Adminis- 
 tration, if any suljordinates in the employ of the 
 Government tiad been connected with such fraud- 
 ulent transactions, it was my duty to state the case 
 to the President and to the Secretary of War, and 
 let them take the initiative, and carry through any 
 investigations of this kind." 
 
 That was the very projier conclusion of the 
 Senator from New Hampshire. Thereupon 
 the Marquis de Chambrun applied to the Sec- 
 retary of VVar, who testifies upon that subject: 
 "I would further state, in reference to these pri- 
 vate interviews, that on both those occasions, De- 
 cember 27, 1871, and January 20, 1872, the Marquis 
 de Chambrun informed me that he was satisfied that 
 a resolution of investigation would be introduced 
 in Congress, investigating the matters concerning 
 these sales of arms: that he was a friend of the 
 AdtninisI ration ; that he was attached to the Admin- 
 istration; that he was anxious that this resolution 
 should bi^ ofl'ci ed by some person wlio was a friend 
 ot the A Iniinistratiou ; ana that he thought I bad 
 better use my iuliueaco to that end." 
 
21 
 
 The Secretary of War declined to have any- 
 thing to do with it; told the Marquis de Cham- 
 hruii he cared nothing about an investigation ; 
 there was nothing to be concealed, the invest- 
 igation was already made ; tor he had made 
 the reports, and the books of the Department 
 were open to everybody. Having failed in his 
 application to the Senator from New Hamp- 
 shire and to the Secretary of War, and, as far 
 as the Senator from New Hampshire is con- 
 cerned, because he was a friend of the Admin- 
 istration, the Marquis turned his attention to 
 Senators who were known not to befriends of 
 the Administration; and henceforth we find 
 him in daily communication with the Senator 
 from Massachusetts down to the time when 
 this preamble and resolution were introduced. 
 It also appears that he furnished the Sen- 
 ator from Massachusetts with the copy of the 
 letter from Remington tj Le Cesne, which 
 constitutes an essential part of the Senator's 
 famous preamble, although he denied having 
 done this to Secretary Boutwell, and pretended 
 that he had given a copy of the letter to Sen- 
 ator Pattersox to show to the Piesident, and 
 that Pattersox had delivered it to the Senator 
 from Massachusetts. The latter Senator, how- 
 ever, testifies that he received the copy of this 
 letterfrom Chambrun himself; thus positively, 
 while under oath, contradicting the testimony 
 of his friend Chambrun, whom he lauded so 
 highly in his former speech uj^on this subject. 
 Indeed poor Chambrun, as he is exhibited in 
 the testimony, is entitled to commiseration. 
 
 Mr. President, one remark more upon the 
 pretended discrepancy of accounts between 
 the two Departments. The Secretary of War 
 was an officer of honorable service during the 
 rebellion, and the Secretary of the Treasury 
 is an honored citizen of Massachusetts. This 
 suspicion cast upon the honored heads of 
 two of the Executive Departments by this 
 intriguing Frenchman might have been dis- 
 pelled by an examination of the published 
 documents upon our table, or at the trifling 
 incoiivenieiice of walking to the Departments 
 to ascertain the truth. But Secretaries Bel- 
 knap and Boutwell are personal friends of the 
 President. This cancels all their excellence 
 in the estimation of the Senator from Massa- 
 chusetts, and he was willing to arouse and con- 
 firm popular suspicion against their integrity, 
 to secure reflected discredit upon their chief, 
 the President of the United States ; and to 
 that end the Senator introduced his pream- 
 ble, not knowing, and apparently not caring, 
 whether it recited truth or falsehood, and made 
 it the foundation of anaciimonious attack upon 
 the Administration. Tliese facts reflecta strong 
 light upon the motives of that Senator in all 
 this business. 
 
 1 have spoken to all the principal subjects 
 embraced in this report. Its statement of 
 facts is abundantly sustained by the accom- 
 panying testimony, and I have referred to 
 
 the authorities which suppport the principles 
 of international law which the report adopts. 
 And here I leave the rej^ort to the dispassion- 
 ate judgment of the peo[)le. ' 
 
 But, sir, the present debate, begun by the 
 Senator from Massachusetts on Friday and 
 continued by the Senator from Missouri on 
 Friday evening, was not intended to discuss 
 the question of the sale of arms. That was 
 the pretext for thrusting another political de- 
 bate upon the Senate prior to the Philadelphia 
 convention. I have already shown you how 
 the Senator from Massachusetts glided by this 
 subject with only a passing and angry glance, 
 and devoted columns of personal abuse to the 
 Chief Magistrate of the nation. The subject 
 was originally introduced for mere partisan 
 purposes, not to ascertain the facts, and this 
 new phase of it is iu full keeping with the 
 primary design. The object is to prejudice the 
 Administration with calumny and falsehood, 
 in the vain hope of thwarting the manifesc 
 purpose of the people to renominate and reelect'. 
 General Grant. The late speech of the Sen- 
 ator from Massachusetts, with two paragraphs 
 upon the subject and twenty columns of 
 calumny upon General Grant, fully justifies 
 this statement. 
 
 Mr. President, the Senator from Massa- 
 chusetts has assumed a position which not 
 only invites but compels an examination of 
 his motives, and after his deliberate and mer- 
 ciless attack upon General Grant, who by the 
 proprieties of his station is precluded from 
 replying, the Senator cannot complain if the 
 friends of General (irant accept the war he 
 has declared, and carry it into the Senator's 
 own camp. 
 
 The Senator from Massachusetts has long 
 been in public life. He was associated early 
 with measui es which finally triumphed, chang- 
 ing the policy of this country from a protection 
 of slavery into a vindication of freedom. When 
 this great consummation was accomplished, it 
 was natural that its leaders and champions 
 should be held in honor and regarded with af- 
 fection by cidaborers in the same field, and 
 by the enfranchised race. The Senator en- 
 joyed the flattering and dangerous encomiums 
 which a grateful people always bestow upon 
 real or supposed benefactors. But it proved 
 true of him, as of many others, that the forti- 
 tude which can survive opposition, is not always 
 distinguished by the steadiness that can endure 
 success. The adulation of thousands, and the 
 constant burning of incense before him, have 
 so completely turned his head that he seems 
 incapable of considering any subject apart 
 from himself. He has, as it is reported, long 
 been not only an admirer, but an imitator of 
 Burke ; and it is clear that in the elaborate and 
 malignant philippic upon the President, which 
 he read in the Senate on Friday, which was 
 composed at great expense of midnight oil, 
 printed in pamphlet form, aod partially dis- 
 
22 
 
 tributed before its delivery in the Senate, the 
 Senator had in mind Burke's terrible arraign- 
 ment of Warren Hastings, which was so vin- 
 dictive as to provoke the following epigram : 
 
 " Oft have we wondered that on Irish ground 
 No poisonous rei'tile bus ere yet been found ; 
 Revealed the secret stands of Nature's work. 
 She saved her venom to create a Burke." 
 
 Imitators are always more successful in 
 copying the vices than the virtues of the old 
 masters; and (he Senator's philippic as far 
 excels its model in malice and meanness as 
 it falls sliort of it in grandeur and eloquence. 
 And there are many reasons for fearing that 
 the Senator will meet the fate of Burke, who 
 late in life turned away from his early princi- 
 ples and died in the embrace of his early 
 enemies, detested by his early friends. 
 
 I propose to consider several of the articles 
 of irapeHchment which are set in array by the 
 Senator's speech against the President. And 
 first let me consider the charge that the Presi- 
 dent has turned the Executive Mansion into a 
 military headquarters. What are the facts? 
 Three dffict-rs of the Army may be found in 
 the White House. Babcock, a major of engin- 
 eers, detailed in pur.>*uance of an act of Con- 
 gress to act as commissioner of public build- 
 ings and grounds; and Dent and Porter, 
 officers belonging to the staff of General Sher- 
 man. Three more modest and courteous gen- 
 tlemen cannot be found in the United States. 
 They were memliers of General Grant's mili- 
 tary family during the war, and they love him, 
 as do all ihose who have ever served with him. 
 In so far as they can assist the President, it is 
 with them a labor of love to do so, and only 
 a labor of love, for neither one of them re- 
 ceives one cent of compensation for such 
 service. If ihey were all dismissed from the 
 White House to-day Babcock would have an 
 office in some other public building, and re- 
 ceive the same salary as at present. Dent and 
 Porter would be occupying rooms in the War 
 Department, dividing with other assistants of 
 General Sherman labor nolvery severe in these 
 piping times of peace, and which would be 
 lighter still when siill further divided. It has 
 been attempted by the Senator to exalt these 
 gentlemen into some official importance ; but 
 they are merely clerks at the White House, 
 assisting the President, with the permission of 
 General Sherman, their official chief; and here 
 let me repeat tliat neither of them receives a 
 cent for such assistance beyond his pay as an 
 officer of the Army. 
 
 Now for the precedents. General Washing- 
 ton appointed General Knox, his old comrade 
 in arms, .Secretary of War ; General Jackson 
 was assisted hy Major Donaldson ; .General 
 Taylor by his son-in law. Colonel Bliss, and 
 President Johnson, by four officers of the 
 Army, deiailed for service at the White House. 
 When General Grant took possession of the 
 White House it was patrolled by sentinels day 
 
 and night; so was the War Department ; so was 
 the residence of Mr. Seward. Tlie first night 
 General Grant slept at the President's House, 
 alter retiring, he heard the tramp of soldiers 
 in the hall below, and presently the command, 
 "Halt; order arms," and the crash of mus- 
 kets on the floor. The General, not knowing 
 wliat it meant, ran down stairs to asceriain. 
 There he found an officer in command of a 
 squad of soldiers ; and on asking an explana- 
 tion, the General was informed that it was 
 the night guard of the Executive Mansion, 
 which lor a long time had been stationed there 
 every night. But General Grant informed the 
 officer that he could take care of himself, and 
 ordered him to take his soldiers to their quar- 
 ters. He waited till his armed friends had 
 Ifti't, then locked the door and went to bed. 
 The next day the whole business of sentinel 
 service was dUcontiiiued, and not a soldier has 
 been on duty at the White House since. Gen- 
 eral Grant also ordered away trom Washington 
 all the companies of soldiers which were on 
 duty here when he was inaugurated ; and not 
 a company of troops can now be lound in or 
 around Washington city. 
 
 Now, in the light of these facts, let me turn 
 to the Senator's speech and read what he says 
 about the turning of the Executive Mansion 
 into a military headquarters, it is a f,iir sam- 
 ple of the monstrous exaggerations of the 
 Senator's speech : 
 "illegal military ring at executive mansion. 
 
 "The military spirit which failed in the effort to 
 set aside a I'uudaiuental law as if it were a tran- 
 sient order was more successful at the Execuiive 
 M.insion, which at once assumed the character of 
 military headquarters. To the dishonor ot the civil 
 .service, and in total disregard of precedent, the 
 President surrounded himself with oUicers of the 
 Army, and substituted military forms lor those of 
 civil life, detailing for this service members of his 
 late staff." 
 
 Allow me to call attention again to the pre- 
 cise language ; and here let me reneat that 
 this speech of the Senator from M tssachu- 
 setts is not to be estimated as you would esti- 
 mate a speech thrown off in the heal of an 
 extempore debate. This wrath was carefully 
 disiilled ; this speech was prepared with great 
 and protracted labor. 
 
 Here is a deliberate arraignment, and what 
 is here is either deliberate truih or deliberate 
 falsehood; one or the other. When he alleges, 
 as he does here, that "to the dishonor of the 
 civil service and in total disregard of prece- 
 dent, the President surrounded himself with 
 officers of the Army, and substituted military 
 forms for those of civil life, detailing for this 
 service members of his late staff," the Sena- 
 tor from Massachusetts penned, revised, cor- 
 rected, jninted, published, sent to the world a 
 delilntratc truth or a deliberate falsehood. 
 Which was it? Was there no precedent for 
 his being served by a few clerks who were 
 wdling to aid liim without pay, from mere 
 i personal affection? Did not Andrew Johnson 
 
23 
 
 have four Array officers detailed for service in 
 the While House? Had not Andrew Johnson 
 been surrounded with sentinels and the White 
 Houfe guarded like a military fortress; and in 
 all the complaints that were made against 
 Andrew .Johnson, did any man charge him 
 with violating the law in having his house pro- 
 tected at right by sentinels? Was any com- 
 plaint made upon the ground that tliree or 
 four Army officers were serving him in the 
 capacity of clerks in the White House? If 
 there was, I never heard of it, and yet we 
 know that in that heated and angry time those 
 who opposed Andrew Johnson were not over- 
 scrupulous about the charges they brought 
 against him, and still such a thing was never 
 laid to his charge, although, as I have shown, 
 instead of what has been done and is being 
 done now being without a precedent, it is less 
 in every respect than was done during the 
 entire administration of Mr. Johnson without 
 criticism from anybody whatever. 
 
 But again, this is a charge not only that the 
 Executive Mansion has assumed the character 
 of military headquarters, but that he has sub- 
 stituted military forms for those of civil life. 
 I ttike it to be the duty of this Senate, I take 
 it to be the duty of the members of the other 
 House, I take it to be the duty of all lovers of 
 truth and justice, who reside for a portion of 
 the year in Washington and know the facts, 
 to bear testimony to the American people 
 whether this arraignment of President Grant 
 is a truth or a falsehood. Senators, how has 
 tlie White House been made to assume the 
 character of military headquarters? Do you 
 encounter any sentinel at the door? Do you 
 see any orderly on the stairs ? Do you see a 
 gun or a musket or a shoulder-strap in the 
 White House from top to bottom? Not one. 
 The whole charge is baseless as a dream. 
 
 Then came the Senator to the great crimes 
 of nepotism and gift receiving. Well, I do not 
 propose to waste much strength upon either 
 of these subjects. Nepotism is a pretty large 
 phrase, and would include a good many of us 
 in its rigid application. I am not aware that 
 it is any worse for a man to procure his brother 
 to be appointed to an office, if competent to 
 discharge its duties, than it is to procure an 
 appointment for a particular friend. In prin- 
 ciple there is no difference between the two 
 eases. It may be that if we were exercising 
 that romantic Spartan simplicity of manner 
 which may return after the millennium, when 
 the Senator from Massachusetts and the Sen- 
 ator from Missouri shall be in joint possession 
 of the White House, this sort of thing might 
 be olsjeoted to ; but really, in the practical 
 course of business in this country, the thing 
 is a little too trifling to deserve serious atten- 
 tion. 
 
 Receiving gifts! What is thereof this? Sim- 
 ply that it results from the consciousness of 
 the American people that the salaries paid by 
 
 our Government are but niggardly compensa- 
 tion for high public service. When the war 
 closed, the exultation and gratitude of the 
 people were unbounded, and it naturally found 
 expression toward those wlio had rendered 
 most distinguished service in suppressing the 
 rebellion. 
 
 Many instances of the same nature are found 
 in English history. Marlborough and Welling- 
 ton were both honored and rewarded by simi- 
 lar expressions of admiration and gratitude. 
 True, in these cases the acts of reward pro- 
 ceeded from Parliament, but Parliament waa 
 not fettered by the rigid provisionsof a written 
 constitution, and could in its omnipotence so 
 give voice to the feelings of the British people. 
 Here the most that Congress could do would 
 be limited to the gift of a sword, with as few 
 diamonds as possible about the hilt. But 
 here the peopJe in their own generous way, 
 spontaneously rendered tribute, and a victori- 
 ous general could certainly not be regarded as 
 tarnishing his laurels by accepting such volun- 
 tary, nay, enthusiastic evidence of apprecia- 
 tion. Grant was not alone in receiving such 
 tokens of appreciation and gratitude. Sher- 
 man, McClellan, Sheridan, and other distin- 
 guished officers were recipients of the same 
 kind of acknowledgments. 
 
 Are these free gifts of a grateful people — a 
 people grateful for country and liberties 
 saved — to be likened to bribes? Who will say 
 it? The Senator from Massachusetts, in his 
 assumption of personal purity and lofty virtue, 
 may utter his spurious indignation, and fortify 
 his position by '' wise saws and modern in- 
 stances," but the robust common sense of the 
 American people will reject with contempt all 
 such absurd criiicism and censure. 
 
 The next serious arraignment of the Presi- 
 dent is in respect to the " big " war he prose- 
 cuted against Haytil i do not propose to go 
 through the San Domingo discussion again. 
 We had it here in secret session and in open 
 session. The Senator from Missouri labored 
 at great length, in open session, to show that 
 the President of the United States had for a 
 long time been levying war upon the republic 
 of Hayti, and the Senator from Massachusetts 
 swelling with what I have no doubt he thought 
 was inspiration, but what was undoubtedly 
 mere atmosphere, repeated some ancient 
 writer who says, "There is no such thing as 
 a small war." He allowed the Senator from 
 Missouri to establish the fact that there had 
 been a war, and then he resurrected antiquity 
 to say that there could be no "small" war. 
 Well, take the two Senators together, and 
 what resulted? Why, that General Grant 
 prosecuted for months a great war against 
 Hayti. 
 
 Now, is that really so, or is there a little 
 exaggeration about that, too? Is that subject 
 to the same deduction and discount you have 
 to make in regard to the White House having 
 
24 
 
 been turned into a fort, and civil life having 
 lost its appearance entirely in the military 
 arrangement for deletipe within which General 
 Grant has intrenclied himself against the as- 
 saults of the Senator from Mas!=achasetts and 
 the Senator from Missouri? Yes, sir, this 
 statement needs just the same deduction. 
 Genera! Grant, it must be understood, knows 
 something about the methods of war. Had 
 the Senator from Massachusetts been Presi 
 dent of the United States and wanted to levy 
 a war upon Hayti, it is very probable that he 
 would have was;cd it in as gentle a manner as 
 Grant is alleged to have done this : but Gen- 
 eral Grant manages war after a different fash- 
 ion. He was Commatider-in-Chief of the Army 
 and of the Navy, and if he meant to make war 
 upon Hayti he knew how to do it. 
 
 But, sir, what was there of that great war 
 upon Hayti? When it was finally ciphered 
 down on the investigation, and the precise 
 facts ascertained, the only act done by any 
 naval officer which could be tortured into a 
 prosecution of war, was the firing off of one 
 sky-rocket from tiie deck of one of our ships, 
 somewhere tiear the coast of Hayti. So that 
 we are told that General Grant, a chieftain of 
 some repuiaiion and experience, in command 
 of the Army and Navy of one of the greatest 
 nations on earth, levied a war upon that fee- 
 ble Government for months, and, in the fres- 
 coed rhetoric of the Senator from Massachu- 
 setts, a great war, too ; yet not a soldier 
 marched, not a gun was fired, not a pocket 
 pistol was drawn ; a single sky-rocket was 
 discharged from a man-of-war. [liaughter. ] 
 
 What is the cliarge against the President? 
 Why, that he usurped the war power of this 
 nation when he fired that sky-rocket. [Laugh- 
 ter.] You cannot tire a sky-rocket from a 
 man-of-war in the Indian ocean, nor in Liv- 
 erpool, nor anywhere on the globe, without a 
 previous act of Congress specifying the precise 
 moment when the sky-rocket shall be fired, 
 in what direction it shall be aimed, how much 
 material shall be in it, and the purpose for 
 which it i-hiill be fired. And if you do not so 
 provide, and if any naval officer somewhere 
 shall, no matter wiih what purpose, send up 
 into blue spjice one sky rocket, the President 
 of the United States, who never even saw the 
 sky-rocket, is chargeable with having usurped 
 the war power of tlie nation and levied a war 
 for several motitlis. There are a great many 
 things that might be said about this moment- 
 ous matter; but, indeed, it ia hardly worth 
 more talk. I do not believe the people of 
 this country will quite think General Grant 
 made a war for several months that nobody 
 ever heard of, and in which not eveiva pocket 
 pistol was discharged. 
 
 But the n)()st, remarkable part of the Sen- 
 ator's speech remains to be considered. I 
 think the people, as they read this malicious 
 arraignment, may lose their patience, but they 
 
 will probably preserve their gravity until they 
 come to the place where tlie Senator from 
 Massachusetts arraigns the Ple^idenl of the 
 United States for egotism, selt'-pretensiorn and 
 a quarrelsome disposition. Mr. Pre.-ident, if 
 tlie people of the United States could s'^e these 
 men as we see them d:iiiy in official and social 
 intercourse, if they could be acquainted as we 
 are with their incomings and outgoings, their 
 daily walk and conversation, they would com- 
 prehend the joke to a degree which they never 
 could without such knowledge. Sir, go to 
 the White House any day, or any evening, 
 and you see the President of the United States, 
 a mild, gentle-mannered man, accessible to 
 the highest, lowest, richest, poorest, blackest, 
 whitest citizen of the United States; to a'l 
 who seek him " sweet as summer," never 
 alluding to himself, never referring to his 
 achievements in the war. 'J'nrn frcm that 
 picture to the lofty and prancing Senator from 
 Massachusetts, who has just jji-anced out of 
 the Chamber, [laughter,] and then imagine 
 that Senator in all his pomp and pride of cir- 
 cumstance, rising here with apiepared and 
 printed, revised and corrected oration, arraign- 
 ing General Grant for egotism and pretension ; 
 and yet more, for a quarrelsome turn ol mind 1 
 
 Now, Mr. President, here is another poiutas 
 to wiiich it is our duty to testily. 'J'he Ameri- 
 can people do not fully know these two men. 
 They do not know how false in every sense, 
 not only in its letter, but in its spirit, and in all 
 the impressions it is designed to produce, that 
 assertion is. We do know it. 1 appeal to you, 
 Senators, as men of honor; I say jou cannot 
 sit here silently and witness such injustice 
 committed in this Chamber. Ifyoudo, you 
 become a party to it. Your silence gives as- 
 sent to it, and in some sense you give your 
 approbation to that charge, and send it out 
 against General Grant before the American 
 people. 
 
 \Vhat are the facts? And I speak now of 
 what every man who knows General Grant 
 knows. 1 was trying last night to recall a 
 single instance if in conversation in regard to 
 the late war 1 had heard General Giant allude 
 to himself, and 1 could not. 1 have heard him 
 speak in the most glowing terms of his com- 
 rades in arms. I have heard him speak of the 
 exploits of Sherman. 1 have heard him allude 
 10 wliat was done by Logan, by McPherson, 
 and by many other officers of the Union Aruiy. 
 I never heard him say, speaking of a battle, 
 '• At such a juncture 1 thought 1 would do so 
 and so;" or, "1 ordered a battalion this way 
 or that;" or, ''I turned the scale by such a 
 maneuver." I never heard him allude to 
 himself in connection with the war. I believe 
 you might go to the White House and live 
 with the President and converse about the war 
 day after day, and you never would know from 
 anything he said that he was in the war at all. 
 
 Turn now again to his great accuser, the 
 
25 
 
 Senator from Massachusetts. Who ever heard 
 him speak five mimiies on any subject that he 
 did not glorify himseK? [Ijaugiiter.] 1 chal- 
 lenge any man, any (riena of iiis, to go to the 
 Jjibrary and biing at random any volume of 
 the Congressional Globe since he took his 
 seat as a Senator, and show me five incites of 
 a speech of that Senator that does not praise 
 himself. Why, sir, in ihis very speech in which 
 be arraigns General Grant for egotism, he 
 commences hy glorifying iiimself. He estab- 
 lished this Kepiiblican [larty ; he was the ear- 
 liest and the most anxious, and he the most 
 effective of those men who brought it into 
 being ; and lie prays for its life less for its own 
 sake liian that he may be spared the sorrow 
 of following its hearse. Sir, the absurdity of 
 this charge, when you consider the two men 
 as we know them, both the accuser and the 
 accused, passes all human understanding, 
 comprehension, or belief. 
 
 I have heard it said (and I am sorry that 
 the Senator is not here lo correct me if it is 
 not true) that a very estimable lady once wrote 
 to the Senator from Massachusetts invoking his 
 aid for some individual who had a case or a 
 claim before Congress. The Senator rejilied 
 that he was so absorbed in the contemplation of 
 general principles, and so arduously laboring 
 for the welfare of man in general, that he had 
 no time to devote to the wants of individuals. 
 The lady responded, thanking him for the 
 civility of his reply, and reminding him that so 
 far as she was informed he had taken a some- 
 what lottier attitude than was occupied by the 
 Almighty, [laughter ;] that while He governed 
 the universe, while He ruled the orbs ii-i their 
 spheres, He also considered the wants of His 
 childi eti, and that not even a sparrow could fall 
 without His knowledge. 
 
 But another great offense of the President 
 is that he is so quarrelsome; and here I will 
 ask the Secretary to read from the Senator's 
 speech the paragraph which 1 have marked. 
 
 The Chief Clerk read as follows: 
 
 "Evidently our President Las never read the 
 eleventh comiaandment : 'A President of the 
 United States shall never quarrel.' At least he 
 lives in perpetual violation ot it, listening to stories 
 from horse-cars, gobbling the gossip ol' his military 
 ring, discoursing on imaginary griefs, and nursing 
 his unjust anger. The elect of lorty million people 
 has no right to quarrel with anybody. His position 
 is too exalted, tie cannot do it without offense to 
 the requirements of patriotism, without a shock to 
 the decencies of life, without a jar to the harmony 
 of the universe." 
 
 Mr. CARPENTER. Mr. President, it is 
 one of the commonest, though by no means 
 the greatest, errors into which the Senator 
 from Massachusetts has fallen that he identi- 
 fies himself so completely with the universe 
 that he is not at all certain whether he is part 
 of the universe, or the universe is part of him. 
 [Laughter.] He asserts here that when the 
 President quarrels with him — of course that 
 is what he means ; he did not mention him- 
 
 self, but he never considered anybody but 
 himself; and when he was sfieaUing of the Pres- 
 ident quarreling he meant that great quarrel 
 of which the President has been made the vic- 
 tim, and to which he has quieily and silently 
 submitted, a quarrel forced upon him by the 
 Senator — he says that such a quarrel jars the 
 harmony of the universe! Well, well! The 
 Senator from Massachusetts might be jarred 
 a great deal more than he has been, and the 
 universe would not take the slightest notice 
 of it. [Laughter.] The universe would not 
 tremble if he were hit tar more severely than 
 he ever has been. 'I'his is one of those stu- 
 pendous, inconceivable evidences of the humil- 
 ity of the Senator from Massachusetts which 
 i wish 1 could read in the hearing of every 
 man in this land. 
 
 Bu», Mr. President, this is not the highest 
 point of arrogance and assumption to which 
 the Senator rises in this paragraph. It is not 
 that he has mistaken himself for the universe 
 that anybody will seriously complain. He has 
 risen in this paragraph above the universe; 
 he has seated himhclf by the side of the 
 Almighty, and undertaken a revision, correc- 
 tion, and enlargement of His wwrks : 
 
 "Evidently our Presidoat has never read the 
 eleventh commandment." 
 
 Now, then, comes the quotation. From 
 whom ? 
 
 "A President of the United States shall never 
 quarrel." 
 
 This is the addition which the Senator from 
 Massachusetts engrafts upon the decalogue, 
 that body of laws given by (lod to man amid 
 the thunders of Sinai. I hold in my hand the 
 sacred volume which contains the revelations 
 of man's latest existence on earth, and pene- 
 trates the vail and discloses the mysteries 
 beyond. John, on the island of Patmos, 
 being " in the spirit on the Lord's day," saw 
 many things, clean and unclean ; he saw the 
 great red dragon with seven heads and ten 
 horns ; he saw the whore of Babylon in scarlet 
 attire; and he saw the Senator from Massa- 
 chusetts. [Laughter and applause in the gal- 
 IferiGS I 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Ed- 
 munds in the chair.) Order must be pre- 
 served, or the galleries will be cleared. 
 
 Mr. CARPEN I'ER. And apparently with 
 a view to prevent the blasphemy which we 
 have witnessed in this Chamber there are 
 written at the conclusion of this sacred vol- 
 ume which contains the liglit of our life in 
 this life and our guide to a better abode above 
 words of awful admonition which I commend 
 to the careful study of the Senator from Mas- 
 sachusetts: 
 
 " For I testify unto every man that heareth the 
 words of the prophecy of Ihis book, if any man 
 shall ADD unto these things, God shall add unto him 
 the plagtien tliat arc written, in thin hook." 
 
 "And if any man shall take away from the words 
 of the book of this prophecy, (iod shall take away 
 
26 
 
 his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy 
 city, and I'roui the tliiugs which are written in this 
 book." 
 
 Oh, Senator from Massachusetts, reviser 
 and corrector of the decalogue, how I regret 
 your absence so that you cannot, hear these 
 passages of Scripture! [Laughter.] Why, 
 sir, if the presumption of the Senator from 
 Massachusetts should only reacli a Utile higher, 
 you might find in the book-stalls of this city 
 within a year a volume entiiled "The Sermon 
 on the Mount, revised, corrected, and greatly 
 enlarged and improved by Chari.es Sumner." 
 [Laughter.] I submit such a production would 
 be in perfect keeping with his supplement to 
 the decalogue. 
 
 But, Mr. President, suppose that on a care 
 ful and impartial investigation of facts it 
 should turn out that all the quarrel that exists 
 between the Senator from Massachusetts and 
 the President of the United States is a quarrel 
 entirely on the part of the Senator, and that 
 it JB based upon motives utterly unworthy of 
 a Senator, what would be thought of it then? 
 1 am sorry he is not here to correct me if I 
 aca misinformed, but I am told by those who 
 ought to know that the first trouble that oc- 
 curred between the Senator from Massachusetts 
 and the Administiatlon was in regard to the 
 Greek mission. It was held by Mr. Tucker- 
 inan, who had always performed his duty to 
 the satisfaction of the Government, and on 
 the accession of this Administration the Sena- 
 tor from Massachusetts, as chairman of the 
 Committee on Foreign Relations, demanded 
 that place, and demanded it for a friend of his 
 in Boston, upon the ground that his friend 
 had, as he said, been "'a life-long friend." It 
 so happened that the Administration could 
 not consistently and properly gratify the Sen- 
 ator in this matter. The demand, as I under- 
 stand it, was made on m-a^e personal grounds. 
 The Senator from Massachusetts demanded 
 the appointment not because Mr. Tuckerman 
 was not a worthy rep'-esen'ative, but because 
 the Senator desir-sd to gratify a "life-long 
 friend." If this w;ts not " nepotism " on the 
 part of the Senator, what was it? 
 
 Then came the removal of Mr. Motley, min- 
 ister to England, fur reasons satisfactory to 
 the Senate. I hat matter was considered in 
 secret session, and I cannot refer to anything 
 that took place. I cannot say whether or not 
 in that debate the ScTiator I'rom Massachusetts 
 declared that Mr. Motley's appointment had 
 been oonceded to him as chairman of the Com- 
 mittee on Foreign Relations. 1 cannot say 
 whether or not Mr. Sumner declared that Mr. 
 Motley was his personal friend. I cannnt say 
 whether or not Mr. Sumner said that if Mr. 
 Motley should be removed it would be the end 
 of all amicable relations between him and this 
 Administration, or words to that effect. 1 can- 
 not say anything about it, and I do not intend 
 to do so. [Laughter.] But, I say, suppose 
 
 such were the facts, what would the people of 
 this country think of the Senator who now 
 comes here and arraigns the President as a 
 quarreler, and announces liimself as the cham- 
 pion of civil service reform, and opposed to 
 entertaining personal considerations in the 
 administration of public affairs? 
 
 There are so many remarkable tilings in the 
 Senator's speech that it is impossible to 
 dwell longer on any one poitit, and my strength 
 is so far exhausted that I shall be compelled 
 to leave many of these sweets for further con- 
 sideration by other Senators. There is one 
 thing, however, which lor its enormitydeserves 
 special attention, atid if 1 thought it would 
 take the last breath of life I have to spend on 
 anything, I would spend it on this. I ask the 
 Secretary to read the extract in relation to 
 Mr. Stanton. 
 
 The Chief Clerk read as follows : 
 
 "the TKSTIMONY of HON. E. M. STANTON. 
 
 "Something also must bo attributed to individual 
 character; and here 1 express no opinion of my 
 own ; 1 shall allow another to speak in solemn words 
 echoed from the tomb. 
 
 "Uu reaching Wastiington at the opening of Con- 
 gress in ]>ecember, ISbit. I was pained to hear that 
 Mr. Stanton, lately Secretary of War, was in fail- 
 ing health. Full of gratitude for his unsurpassed 
 services, and with a sentiment of friendship quick- 
 ened by common political sympathies, 1 lost no 
 time in seeing him, and repeated my visits until his 
 death, toward the close of the same month. My 
 last visit was martced by a communication never to 
 be forgotten. As 1 entered his bedroom, where I 
 found liim reclining on a sofa, propped by pillows, 
 he reached out his hand, already ciaiumy cold, and 
 in reply to my inquiry, "JIow are youV answered, 
 'Waiting for iny furlough.' Then at once with 
 singular solemnity he said, 'I have something to 
 say to you.' When I was seated he proceeded 
 without one word of introduction: 'I know Gen- 
 eral Grant better than any other person in the 
 country can know him. It was my duty to study 
 him, and I did so, night and day, when I saw 
 him and when I did not see him, and now I 
 tell you what 1 know, he cannot govern thin coun- 
 try.' The intensity of his manner and the posi- 
 tiveness of his judgment surprised mo. fur though 
 I was aware that the late Secretary of War did not 
 place the President very high in general capacity, I 
 was not prepared for ajudgmontso strongly couched. 
 At last, alter some delay, occupied in meditating his 
 remarkable words, 1 observed, "What you say is 
 very broad.' "It is as true >^is it is broad,' ho re- 
 plied promptly. I added. 'You are tardy ; you tcH 
 this late ; why did you not say it before his nomina- 
 tion?' lie answered that he was not consulted 
 about the nomination, and had no opportunity of 
 expressing his opinion upon it, besides being much 
 occu{)ied at the time by his duties as Secretary of 
 War and his contest with the President. 1 followed 
 by saying, 'But you took part in the presidential 
 election, and made a succession of speeches lor him 
 in Oliio and Pennyylvania.' 'I spoke,' said he, 
 ' but 1 never introduced the name of General Grant, 
 I spoke for the Republican party anil the Repub- 
 lican cause.' This was the last time 1 saw Mr. Stan- 
 ton. A few days later I followed him to the grave 
 where he now rests." 
 
 Mr. CARPENTER. Mr. President, let us 
 examine this remarkable statement a little in 
 detail. The Senator asserts that this interview 
 occurred a few days before Mr. Stanton's 
 death; and that Mr. Stanton was expressing 
 not a sudden conclusion formed upon newly- 
 discovered testimony, but the result of his 
 
27 
 
 study of Grant's character for many years. 
 He makes Mr. Stanton say " I know General 
 Grant better than any other person in the 
 connlry c;tn know him. It was my duty to 
 Study him when I saw him and when I did 
 not see him, " &c. And he makes him say 
 "that he was not consulied about the nomin- 
 ation " of General Giant fur the Presidency, 
 and that in the speeches which he (Stanton) 
 made during the campaign lie never intro- 
 duced the name of General Grant. 
 
 The Senator from Massachusetts has been 
 very unfortunate in all this business. He 
 waded into this investigation chin deep upon 
 the strength of letters of very eminent individ- 
 uals, whose names he refused to disclose, and 
 whose testimony, therefore, we could not ob- 
 tain. But upon this occasion he evidently 
 intended to support his charge against Gen- 
 eral Grant by witnesses who could not be 
 called to imppach him. So he violated ail the 
 delicacies of friendship and invaded tlie sane 
 tuary of the grave and called Edwin M. Stan- 
 ton back to l)ear testimony agairist the Presi- 
 dent of the United States. Sir, it is a little 
 difficult to kee)i stricily within parliamentary 
 decorum and say what ought to be said on such 
 an occasion. I shall attempt to do it, and I 
 hope I sh-dll succeed. 
 
 In the first place, I am speaking to men who 
 will know whether I am right or wrong in what 
 I say ; and I assert that if Mr. Stanton made 
 that declaration to the Senator from Massa- 
 chusetts under the circumstances detailed by 
 him, if there is a word of substantial truth in 
 that whole paragraph, if it be not an infamous 
 fabrication from first to last, then Mr. Stanton 
 was the most double faced and dishonest man 
 that ever lived ; and I call upon Senators 
 around me to bear testimony upon this point. 
 
 There were accidents that brought me to know 
 Mr. Stanton very well. 1 came here to attend 
 to an important lawsuit, occupied a room in 
 the War Department, and for several months 
 saw Mr. Stanton daily. I went to the Supreme 
 Court in the morning at eleven o'clock to 
 watch the progress of its business, and I was 
 at leisure for the rest of the day. I was much 
 of the time at the Department, and therefore 
 frequently with him. He was at that time, as 
 you all know, imprisoned in the Depaitment 
 in consequence of troubles with the President, 
 and he used to come into my room to smoke 
 and often invited me to walk with him. In 
 the course of our conversations I heard him 
 refer to General Grant a hundred times, and 
 never but with the highest respect and the 
 kindest feeling. 
 
 I came here a Senator at the session at 
 which Mr. Stanton died and was frequently 
 at his house during his last illness. I saw 
 him just before he died, under circumstances 
 which gave me an opportunity to know more 
 thati I should otherwise have known of his 
 feeling toward General Grant. I had charge 
 
 for the first time in my life of a bill in the Sen- 
 ate, the bill which we passed for the recon- 
 structio;i of the Legislature of Georgia, after 
 the colored members had been exf)elled. We 
 sat late at niglit to pass it. At about half past 
 eleven, while in my seat, it occurred to me 
 something might be done to insure the app(»int- 
 ment of Mr. Stanton as judtre of the Supreme 
 Court. It had been tadied about for some 
 weeks. It had been ex[)ected by many of us, 
 and yet his nominaiioii did not come. 1 then 
 and there drew up a letter to the President 
 recommending Mr. Stantoti to be a[)pointed 
 judge of that court. I took it around this 
 Chamber and in less than twenty minutes 
 obtained thirty-seven signatures ot Repuljlican 
 Senators. That was Frnlny night, and belbre 
 leaving the Senate Chamber I agreed with the 
 Senator from Michigan [Mr. Chandler] to 
 meet me at the White House the following 
 morning, Saturday, at ten o'clock, to present 
 the letter to the President. 
 
 The next morning at ten o'clock I rode to 
 Mr. Stanton's and showed him the letter, and 
 as he glanced over it the tears started down his 
 cheeks. He said not a word. He did not 
 even say, thank you. Witnessing the depth 
 ofhisemotion I bowed myself out, telling him 
 that I was going to present it to the President. 
 
 I carried it to the President and found the 
 Senator from Michigan with the President, 
 awaiting me. Said the President : 
 
 "lam delighted to have that letter; I have de- 
 sired for weeks to appoint Mr. Stanton to that place, 
 and yet, in euosequeiice of his having been Secre- 
 tary of War and so prouiinenl in the recent political 
 strife, I have doubted whether it woulil answer to 
 make him n jwtge ; that indorsement is all I want; 
 you go to Mr. S'anton's house and tell him hisname 
 will be sent to the Senate on Monday morning." 
 
 This was on -Saturday. I then drove back 
 to Mr. Stanton's house and told him what the 
 President had said. Mr. Stanton's first reply 
 was: "The kindness of General Grant — it is 
 perfectly characteristic of him — will do more 
 to cure me than all the skill of the doctors." 
 And, sir, I know that in tlie seiious illness 
 which terminated so disastrously he frequently 
 had occasion to refer to the course of the Ad- 
 ministration, to matters that were pending in 
 Congress, and I do know, and I can testify, 
 and I hold it to be ray solemn duty to testify, 
 that in all those interviews, from first to last, 
 from the time I first made his acquaintance 
 down to the hour of his death, I never heard 
 him say of General Grant anything that was 
 not of the kindest nature and of the highest 
 praise. 
 
 My friend from Vermont [Mr. Edmunds] 
 reminds me of a difficulty that occurred after 
 the name of Mr. Stanton was sent to the Sen- 
 ate. He was appointed to succeed Mr. Justice 
 Grier who had retired, to take effect on a 
 future day, the 1st of February I think, that 
 he might be present at the decision of some 
 causes that had been previously argued. Mr. 
 
28 
 
 Stanton's name was sent here; he was con- 
 firmed by the Senate, and a commission made 
 out and ready to be delivered. The President 
 then suirt;ested tliis ddKculiy: Mr. Justice 
 Grier still beinj? in office, could the commis- 
 sion be delivered? Thereupon several friends 
 were consulted by the President and they 
 advised him that there was no difficulty on 
 that fjrouiid : and thereupon the commission 
 was sent to Mr. Stanton, to take effect on the 
 day when the resignation of Mr. Grier should 
 take effect. The President co!itinued to call 
 upon him at his iiouse, d;iy after day, during 
 Lis last illness, up to the day of his death, and 
 followed his remains to tlie grave. 
 
 The circumstances of the appointment of 
 Mr. Stanton to tiie place were very remark- 
 able. Mr. Justice Grier, an old man full of 
 honors and lull of days, had sent in his resig- 
 nation or announced ins disposition to retire 
 on a certain day. Mr. Stanton was nominated, 
 confirmed, commissioned, and ready to take 
 his seat. He was then taken sick, died, and 
 was buried, all before the 1st day of February, 
 and on that day good old Justice Grier re- 
 turned, took his place on the bench, and helped 
 to decide causes after his successor had been 
 appointed, commissioned, and was dead and 
 buried. The circumslances show the anxiety 
 of the President in this matter to do this kindly 
 act to his friend Stanion ; and I tell you, sir, 
 what I do know and what no statement could 
 shake from my belief for one moment, that 
 there is not one word of truth in the whole 
 paragiaph which hiis been read from the desk. 
 In the i)aragraph quoted from the Senator's 
 speech, he represents Air. Stanton as saying 
 that although in the campaign of 18G8 he took 
 the stump tor the ii-epublican party, he did not 
 mention the name of General Grant. 1 iiave 
 here the report of a speech made by Mr. Stan- 
 ton at SteubenviUe, Ohio, where he had for- 
 merly resided, and I read from it, being a 
 report in the Daily Chronicle of September 
 27. 18G8, as follows: 
 
 "Friends and Fellow-Citizens : The time is rap- 
 idly approaching when you will be called upon to 
 choose whom you will trust with the chief execu- 
 tive power of this nation for the next four years, 
 who shall exercise the law-making power as your 
 Representatives in Congress during the next con- 
 gressional term. You have never made a. choice so 
 important to yourselves, to your country, and to 
 mankind; for upon it may rest the choice of peace 
 or of war, of domestic tranquillity or civil discord, 
 freedom or slavery, in short of all the blessings that 
 can follow good government, or the evils that bad 
 government, can indict upon the human race. At 
 the last presidential election the country was in the 
 midst of a bloody war, and had for three years been 
 struggling in resistance against rebellion. The for- 
 tune ol war was so varied that some patriots began 
 to feel doubtful as to the result; others were hope- 
 less. While on the one hand the rebels strove in 
 military power, and, encourugod by syugpathetic 
 league with friends in the northern and western 
 States, were bold, dcliant, and boasted that they 
 only needed for the tinal success that their friends 
 in the northern States would carry the presidential 
 election, these friends, who had resisted the war at 
 every stage, were equally bold and confident in their ! 
 ezpectatiou that their hour of triumph was at hand; I 
 
 but these hopes and expectations were doomed to 
 ignominious overthrow at the polls by the election 
 of Abraham Lincoln, and on the tit-Id of battle by 
 our armies under the command of General Grant. 
 [Applause.] 
 
 "Overwhelmed by these disasters, political and 
 military, the rebels gave up in despair, declared their 
 cause the 'lost cause,' and huiubly sued for life, 
 liberty, and property, prolessing to bo deeiily grate- 
 ful for the generous terms that were ofl'ercd. Of the 
 causes that led lothe rebellion and a justification of 
 the nation in prosecuting the war, it is needless here 
 to dwell. They are still fresh in your recollection. 
 The graves of three hundred thousand patriot sol- 
 diers slain in battle by the rebels are still green, the 
 tears of orrihans, widows, and bereaved parents still 
 flow, and the maimed and wounded soldiers around 
 us are living memorials of the cruelty of the rebeli 
 in their war against the United States Government. 
 You will bear in mind, however, that the rebellion 
 was occasioned by a thirty years' conspiracy of those 
 whom Mr. Johnson boldly termed the slaveholding 
 oligarchy of the southern Slates— an oligarchy based 
 upon laud monopoly and slave labor. This slave- 
 holding aristocracy thirsted to extend their territory 
 and political power, and by extending their system 
 into the free States to obtiiin a monopoly of the fer- 
 tile lands and rich miuerulsof those States, and ulti- 
 mately obtain control of the Government, Expe- 
 rience has shown that the systems of free labor and 
 slave labor are hostile, and cannot exist together, 
 so that the foot-hold of slavery is an impassable bar- 
 rier to free emigration, and would give to theslave- 
 holders not only .a monopoly of lands, products, and 
 minerals, but would command all the great channels 
 of commerce with the Piicitic and the nations of the 
 East, and make them the richest people on the face 
 of the globe. This ambitious aim was sternly re- 
 sisted in the northern Slates. 
 
 "Mindful of the fortune of war, and fearful of 
 delay, the first election of Mr. Lincoln wns deemed 
 by the slaveholders a fitting occ:ision for the out- 
 break of this rebellion. Ou the d;iy alter the presi- 
 dential election the fiag nf the tJnited Stales was 
 hauled down and the Palmetto ilag run up in 
 Charleston. Convenlions lor secession were called 
 in all the slaveholding .States, and very soon ten 
 States organized a sti-called confederate govern- 
 ment, hostile to the Government of the United 
 States, at Montgomery, and transferred its capit,al 
 to Richmond. Immediately atterward forts, arsenals, 
 magazines, arms, ammunition, shii)-yards, ships of 
 war, and the public money were seized and con- 
 verted to the purposes of the reuels. The naviga- 
 tion of the Ohio and of the Potomac were closed. 
 Northern men and northern women were impris- 
 oned or banished. The slaveholding Slates' nrmios 
 were levied. The forts and troops of the United 
 States were besieged, bombarded, and captured, 
 and the ca|>ital of the nation at Washington was 
 beleaguered and threatened by a hostile torce. 
 
 " In this condition of things the first troops were 
 called out in defense of this nation, aud the first war 
 loan negotiated; and for every life that has been 
 lost, every drop of blood that has been expended, 
 every dollar that has been Liid out, every bond or 
 note that has been issued, every tax that has been 
 collecteil, the slaveholding aristocracy are respons- 
 ible. They and their sym)iathizers in the northern 
 and western St.afes urged them to hold on, to carry 
 on the war until they could obtain control of the 
 Government at the next presidential election. The 
 measures of Mr. Lincoln to defend the Government 
 received the highest sanction. The Governors aud 
 Legislatures of loyal States vied with eacli ottier in 
 urging enlistments. Ciingrcss at its first session voted 
 an army of five hundred thousand men and $500,- 
 000,000 to support them. The people flocked trom 
 their homes by thousands and thousands to join the 
 Army. The soldiers in every camp from the Missis- 
 sippi to the Rapidan, trom every corps, brigade, 
 regiment, and company, shouted to their brethren 
 at hmue to stand by the (jo vernmeut and rally round 
 the flag. 
 
 "These measures of defense were not without 
 opposition, for about the very time that Sherman and 
 his army were forcing their way over the fortifica- 
 
29 
 
 tisBsanrl the intrenchinents at Atlanta, the conven- 
 tion at Cliiciigo deehiriid the war to be a failure and 
 demanded the cssatioii of hostilities. This made a 
 plain and broad issue, and very soon became the 
 great issue of tlie presidential canvass. The result 
 was decisive. Twenty-one States, two hundred and 
 thirteen electoral votes, over Iwenty-eijjUt million 
 people, supported tlie Government. [Applause.] 
 The estimate of General Grant upon this result is 
 expressed in the following telegram: 
 
 City Point, November 10, 1864—10 30 p. m. 
 Hon. Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary <>/ War : 
 
 Enough now seems to be known of who is to hold the 
 reins of Government tor the ne.xt four years. Con- 
 gratulate the President for this double vic'ory. 
 [Applause.] The election having passed off quietly, 
 with no bloodshed or riot throughout the land, is 
 a victory worth more to the country than a battle 
 won. Rebeidom and Enroi>e will consider it so. 
 
 U. S. GRANT, Lieutenant General. 
 
 "The people, the army, and the gremt commnnrier 
 thui sustained the eiiianeipation proclamntioa which 
 had been ianued on the Iv/; of Jaiiwiry, 1863. Abra- 
 ham Lincoln hadstruck a blow attheroots of the re- 
 bellion by liberating lour million slaves, strength- 
 ening our Army and carrying dismay into the hearts 
 of the rebels. [Cheers.] The full effect of this great 
 measure was not appreciated until near the close of 
 the war; but now, when the restoration of slavery 
 is a cherished hope of those most hostile to the elec- 
 tion of General Grant, it cannot bo too well consid- 
 ered. The wealth and power of the rebels wis 
 mainly in their slaves; they were the producing 
 and laboring class, and without their labor the plant- 
 ations were of little value. By the system of en- 
 forced, unpaid labor, the rebel master was able to 
 sow his land, gather his crops, feed and clothe his 
 family, and furnish supplies to the army while the 
 whole white population should engage in war. It 
 yias thus tliat slavery was soon found to be a mighty 
 engine of war, more [Kiwerful than belonged to any 
 other people; but it was different in the northern 
 States. Every Uiion soldier that left his home to 
 join the Army went from the farm, the workshop, or 
 the manufactory, and diminished the productive 
 industry of the State in his absence. The crops were 
 ungathered and rotted upon the ground. The ham- 
 mer was silent. The manufactory stood still. He 
 had no slave to work to support his family and to do 
 his labor for nothing. But the emancipation of 
 slaves changed the position of parties. The slaves, 
 cut loose from the plantations, flocked within our 
 lines; thousands ui)on thousands joined our armies 
 and performed military work. The condition of 
 the war was therefore in some degree equalized, 
 and this great act of Mr. Lincoln carried dis- 
 may into the hearts of rebels and strengthened 
 the hearts of loyal people. Besides, a large 
 and powerful party, who regarded slavery as a 
 God-forbiddeu sin and crime, and had been labor- 
 ing for years to abolish or limit it, gathered new 
 hope and renewed their strength to bring the war to 
 a close. Three things mainly contributed to over- 
 throw the rebellion : first, the valor of our soldiers 
 and the skill of their commanders : second, the pub- 
 lic faith and credit, which enabled us to raise money 
 to support the Army and provide for its wants; and, 
 third, the emancipation of the slaves, which dimin- 
 ished their power and gave us strength. 
 
 "The credit and good f^ith of a State is essential 
 to its existence, and they constitute the sinews of it? 
 power. But no Government can exist without credit 
 sufficient to meet extraordinary emergencies; for no 
 Government can in these times keep mofley in its 
 treasury suffi«ient to carry on a foreign or domestic 
 war, and construct a great national work like the 
 Pacific railroad, or meet many of the exigencies 
 that hapjien in the life of a nation. Prance, Russia, 
 Austria, Great Britain, Spain, Italy, and the Papal 
 States, and all the great Powers of the world, are 
 compelled to rely upon their credit to meet great 
 emergencies. This was eminently the case with the 
 United States; for wheia the rebellion broke out the 
 Treasury was empty, its arms and magazines had 
 been plundered, and there were no means to carry 
 on the war. By the effort of our enemies credit 
 
 abread was cut off, so that the Government must fall 
 at the firststroke of rebellion or rely upon the faith 
 of its ijeople and its domestic credit. Tlie Govern- 
 ment belonged to the people, and they were equal 
 to the emergency. 
 
 "By the purchase of bonds and current notes 
 enough money w.is raiseil to meet the exigencies of 
 the war, the Treasury was filled, and there was 
 little necessity in the Treasury from the beginning 
 to the end of the war, and then only for short peri- 
 ods, until a fresh appeal could be made, and thus it 
 happened that the public faith and the public credit 
 became a corner-stone of the St:ite, and contributed 
 largely to the salvation of the Government. When 
 the war wa.s over new and importantduties devolved 
 upon theGoverninent ; tUe Army had to be paid, the 
 pensions provided, and protectif>n and education 
 given to the enfranchised slaves, the rights of citizens 
 in all the rebel States secured, and the Federal guar- 
 antee of a republican form of government carried 
 into execution. Immediately upon the meeting of 
 Congress it devoted itself assiduously to this work — 
 loans were issued, money raised, the Army paid as 
 it was disbanded, while the widows and disabled sol- 
 diers were liberally pensioned. Tbe l^Veedmeu'ij 
 Bureau was organized lor tbe protection of the liber- 
 ated slaves, the civil rights bll was passed to pro- 
 tect citizens in the loyal States, and measures 
 adopted to give peace, tranquillity, and republican 
 government in all the Stales whose governments had 
 been cast off by the rebellion. 
 
 " Some of these measures have been carried out, 
 others, for reasons needless to discuss now, still 
 remain an unexecuted dead letter, and they will so 
 remain until General Grant shall bo elected Presi- 
 dontofthe United States. [Great applause.] Grant, 
 then, stands this day before us the foremost military 
 comtnander in the world, with peace for his watch- 
 word. [Applause.] Why should he not be elected? 
 Wha' reason has any lover of country for not voting 
 for him? By his side stands Schuyler Colfax, who, 
 by his own energy, good character, and industry, 
 advanced troio the printing-office to the Speaker's 
 chair, and for three successive terms has titled that 
 high office with honor and distinction, llonestaud 
 upright men have been nominated foryour Repre- 
 sentatives in Congress, pledged to stand by Grant 
 and the country. Why, then, again I ask, should 
 he and they not receive your support? The history 
 of Grant is known to you and to the world. Edu- 
 cated at West Point, he served with distinction 
 through the Mexican war, and when it was ended, 
 unwilling to be a drone, resigned his commissioa 
 and engaged in the pursuits of civil life. Leaving 
 his peaceful pursuits at the commencement of the 
 reoehion, he joined the Army, and soon advanced 
 to the rank of major general, commanding an army. 
 After varied and important services he moved upon 
 the enemy's works at Donelson, and compelled their 
 commander, Buckner, to surrender with eighteen 
 thousand prisoners of war. Soon after he grappled 
 with Beauregard on the field of Shiloh and drove 
 him and his routed army from the field. Resolved 
 to open the navigation of the Mississippi river, he 
 ran its batteries, fought and defeated General 
 Johnston, chased the rebel General Pemberton into 
 Viclisburg, and forced him to surrender with thirty 
 thousand prisoners of war. [Applause.] Advanced 
 to command all the armies of the West, he fought 
 and defeated Bragg at Chattanooga, shattered his 
 army, and delivered that vast territory from the 
 hands of the rebels. [A()plause.] Advanced still 
 higher as Lieutenant General, he changed his 
 headquarters to the Potomac, forty days' marching 
 and fighting through the Wilderness drove Lee and 
 his army into llicLimond. Compelled to evacuate, 
 Lee was chased to Appomattox Court-House, aad 
 forced to surrender himself and his arms and men 
 as prisoners of war, which practically brought the 
 rebellion to an end. [Applause.] And now I ask 
 what reason has any man to vote against General 
 Grant? Hm cai^aiity and integrity for civil admin- 
 istration ivere equally manifeat in the vast territory in 
 which he operated. If any man among you would 
 hide from the boy tbe musket and knapsack that 
 his father carried at Donelson. at Vicksburg, upon 
 Lookout mountain, throughout the Wilderness, be- 
 
30 
 
 fore Richmond, at Five Forks, at AppomatoxCourt- 
 House, and shouldering proudly inarched with two 
 hundred thousand of his fell w-soldiers through the 
 streets of Washington and around the Capitol and 
 Executive Mansion that he defended with his life 
 for years in the long march, the wearisome siege, 
 and the storm of battle, let such man vote against 
 General Grant. [Api)lause.] If there is any man 
 among you who would blot from the page of 
 our history the story of these great achievements, 
 let him draw black lines arounii them and write 
 across their face, " Have no share in these great 
 deeds, for I vote against Grant." [Applause.] 
 Is there any man among you that would compel 
 the armies of the Potomac, of 'he James, of the 
 Ohio, of the Cumberland, of the Tennessee, and of 
 the Gulf, to bo again gathered at the tap of the 
 drum and surrendered as prisoners of war to Lee and 
 Johnston, Beauregard and Forrest, and Preston, )et 
 him vote against General Grant. [Applause.] If 
 there is any man .among you who has forgotten that 
 bright summer Sabbath day the little Monitor, as 
 she steamed out against the new sea monster, the 
 Merrimac, and before noon drove her, shattered and 
 crippled, to port; if there is any man who would 
 have rejoiced to behold acannon ball shatter Farra- 
 But, as lashed to his m^st hodrove through the rebel 
 fleet and pushed them to pieces, let that man vote 
 against Grant. If any man would have Worden, and 
 Farragut, and Winslow, and all our great admirals 
 haul down the star-spangled banner, never again 
 to brave the battle and the breeze; if ho would see 
 them slink in shame from their own quarter-decks, 
 »nd give up their shii)S to Maury, and Buchanan, 
 and Semmes, and Motfat, while the confederate bars, 
 emblems of slavery, tiaunt on every sea, in every 
 State, let him vote against Grant. Vote early and 
 vote often; for if Grant be elected, this globe shall 
 disappear from the firmament before the banner 
 of the United States shall suffer tarnish or 
 shame on the land nor on the deep. [Applause.] 
 If there is any man among you that would 
 reverse the order of history ; who would bring upon 
 you a shame and a reproach never before known 
 among the nations of the e;irth; who would have 
 the commander of the United States armies deliver 
 up his sword and humbly bi>w before the rebel com- 
 mander — let that, man vote against Grant, but never 
 again call himself an Americ.iii citixeo. [Applause.] 
 If there is any man wliose eyeballs wonlit not burn 
 to behold Lee upon the portico of the Capitol, with 
 Beauregard, Preston, and Forrest at his side, with a 
 confederate army around him, and, as the Govern- 
 ment is transferred to them, listen to the rebel yell 
 as it sounds on the field of battle and in the New 
 York convention, [loud cheers.] let such a man vote 
 against Grant and go to Washington on the fth of 
 March. [Applause.] Why, then, I repeat, should 
 any lover of his country vote against Grant, Col- 
 fax, and the Republican members of Congress ? 
 
 ■'A convention has been held in New York and put 
 in nomination opposition candidates — iloratio Sey- 
 mour and F"rank P. Blair. Seymour professes that 
 he is an unwilling candidate caught up by a whirl- 
 wind. [Laughter and cheers.] Blair was put in 
 nomination by Preston, of Kentucky, who fought 
 for years against his country, and the nomination 
 wa.s seconded by Forrest, of Fort Pillow. That nom- 
 ination was received with acclamation, and the 
 opposing candidates thus stand before you for your 
 choice. The v7atchword of Grant, as I have said, is 
 peace. Now, what is the watchword of the New 
 York convention? A few days before the meeting 
 of that convention, Frank Blair, in a manifesto to 
 his friend Brodhead, declared the platform on 
 which he was willing to stand. It was plain, direct, 
 aud the acclamation vpith which it was received by 
 the New York convention proves it to be the real 
 platform and settled purpose of those who support 
 the convention and are voting against Grant The 
 substance is: first, that the President shall declare 
 all the reconstruction laws of Congress null and 
 void; second, that he shall compel the Army to 
 undo what has been done; third, that the white 
 population of the rebel States shall be sutt'ered 
 to organize their own govornments; fourth, that the 
 talk about greenbacks and bonds and gold aud the i 
 
 public credit and the public debt is idle talk; fifti 
 that the President must trample in the dust th 
 reconstruction laws passed by Congress. 
 
 " This platform admits and designs to admit n 
 doubt or equivocation. And what is the true mear 
 ing and result? If the reconstruction acts of Ci)n 
 gresa may be declared by the President null an 
 void, he then becomes a dictator, with the \a.v 
 making power in his hands alone. If he may con: 
 pel the military power to undo what has been don 
 under and by virtue of acts of Congress, he beoonK 
 a military dictator, and all form and semblance ( 
 republican government is lost. If the white popi 
 lation of the rebel States are to reorganize their ow 
 governmen's without reference to the reconstructin 
 acts of Congress, then it is plain to be seen that tL 
 first act will be the restoration of slavery — the rei 
 toration to the rebel power of the engine with whic 
 it carried on the W;ir, the perpetual power an 
 domination of the aristocracy of the slave-holdic 
 States — the slave oligarchy — forever in the South. 
 
 "After discussing the financial question and di 
 nouncing repudiation, he paid a glowing tribute i 
 praise to the bravery of our Army and Navj 
 describing the different marches, battles, naval cou 
 bats, and victories of the war. lie conrtuded h 
 speech toith an eloquent appeal to all loyal people, 
 all who have their country at heart, to work atxidi 
 ountu, to work with ardor, and by the election of Gra 
 they would give liberty, contentment, and happiness 
 the country forever." 
 
 It will thus be seen that the Senator frot 
 Massachaselts, in the paragrapli before quote 
 from his speech, represents .Mr. Stanton as fa 
 sifying on his deatli bed the truth as itappeare 
 frotn his previously reported speeches. 
 
 In a speech delivered at Philadelphia, jii: 
 before tlie eleciion ot" General Grant, M 
 Stanton said : 
 
 "' Ladies and (gentlemen, Fellmo-citizens of Philn 
 delphia: This mighty concourse, the largest that iii 
 eyes ever beheld, is significant of two things : firs 
 it is a judgment in favor of Ulysses S. Grant." 
 * * * ■■ Uponthe election nextTuesday, tl 
 3J of November, I behold the rock of our nationi 
 safety; and upon the triumph ot the banner whie 
 is held in the hands of Ulysses S. (Jrant I beliol 
 the victory of the principles of freedom and of jui 
 government, now, aud in all time." * * * : 
 
 " Why then, tellow-citizcns, have you this nigl 
 passed judgment in favor of Ulysses S. Grant an 
 against Horatio Seymour? The first reason is froi 
 the persons who put them in nomination before th 
 people, and who are now urging them forward n 
 candidates for the Presidency of the United State 
 They met in New York a short time ago; and wli 
 were they? They were red-handed rebels, prisot 
 ers of war to the United Slates, they and their assi 
 ciates. These are tlie men who i>ut in nominatio 
 Horatio Seymour. Who put in nomination Ulysst 
 S.Grant? The great Republican party that bor 
 this nation triumphantly through the war, unde 
 the Divine blessing, amid the trials and dangei 
 and all the vicissitudes of the great war that w 
 have just passed through. lU; w;is nominated b 
 the great Ptepublican p.irty. The first reason, thei 
 why we should prefer Grant on next Tuesday t 
 Seymour is to be found in the organization and pei 
 sons who placed them in nomination, and in thos 
 whom they represent. Grant represents the loy; 
 heart of 'America; Seymour is a traveling agent o 
 Wade Hampton and Forrest. 
 
 " Another reason for yourjudgment is to bo foun 
 in the merits of the persons themselves. In Grat 
 we behold the leader of our armies in the path c 
 victory. [Applause.] In Grant we behold the gre: 
 General who, under divine Providence, led oi 
 armies, supported as they were by some of thet 
 who are here before you to-night. Tho same gallar 
 Genenil who, assisted by your present Governo 
 John W. Geary, antl aided by your late Governo 
 Andrew G. Ciirtin, here at home, in the executiv 
 council and State administration, led you onwai 
 
31 
 
 from the Missiseippi to the Potomac eastward, until 
 no rebel flag poisoned the gale on this continent. 
 
 "These, then, are reasons which fully justify the 
 choice which you will make next Tuesday : but these 
 reasons are denied by others, and chiefly by the 
 agent, the representative of Forrest and of Hamp- 
 ton, who has recently been traversingthis continent 
 for one thousand miles, giving reasons why Grant 
 should not be elected, and vyhy the banner of the 
 Union, dishonored and inglorious, should be in- 
 trusted to his hands." ***** 
 
 " The mistakes mentioned are, Seymour says, ' the 
 mistakes of the Kepublicau party.' What, then, 
 has General Grant got to do with them ? [Cheers 
 for Grant.] While Congress may have made mis- 
 takes, if you please, without number — day by day 
 made mistakes — Grant was before the enemy's face 
 fighting him; he was taking no surrender, except 
 that it was ' unconditional!' [Applause.] No terms 
 left his lips but 'unconditional surrender ' of the 
 enemy of his country." ***** 
 
 " Upon the 5th day of Ju'y, 1863, notwithstanding 
 the conduct of Horatio Seymour, the sun of our 
 country's glory burst forth in splendor through the 
 dark cloud of rebellion that had for some years over- 
 shadowed it, and the baleful exhalations of treason 
 were scattered. Do your duty next Tuesday, and 
 the sun of our political glory will shine as brightly 
 and with as great a luster as it shone on the day of 
 the 4th of July at Vicksburg and at Gettysburg. 
 [Applause.] Vote against Grant, and the darkness 
 and gloom that will settle over this country liKe the 
 pall of midnight will settle deeper and deeper over 
 the land, over its prosperity, over all the elements of 
 national power, over all the elements of national 
 honor, overall tho elements of national strength, 
 and the greatest calamity that ever befel a people 
 ■will happen. May divine Providence avert that 
 catastrophe." 
 
 On the same night, Mr. Stanton was sere- 
 
 naded at the Union League, and spoke as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 " Fellow- (Viixcns: General Grant never looked 
 upon an army of tho enemy of his country but to 
 conquer it. [Applause.] He neversat down before a 
 rebel strongholil to besiege it, but it fell before him. 
 Tho samo arm that supported him at tho head of his 
 Army, and the gallant troops that followed him will 
 continue to uphold and sutiport him, because he 
 represents the great American heart; and the tri- 
 umphs that have been won by the physical armies, 
 will be more than repiiid, thrice repaid, by the 
 glorious victory of next Tuesday." 
 
 It is a fortunate thing that the dead Secre- 
 tary has left it out of the power of the living 
 Senator to btlie him. 
 
 Further quotations might be made from 
 speeches of Mr, Stanton in the campaign 
 which resulted in General Grant's election, to 
 show that Mr. Stanton not only referred to 
 General Grant by name, but that he accom- 
 panied the mention of that name with most 
 flattering commendation. But the quotations 
 I have made are sulfieient to show either that 
 Mr. Stanton on his death-bed uttered a false- 
 hood to the Senator from Massachusetts, a 
 falsehood wiiich he must have known to be sus- 
 ceptible of easy contradiction by reference to 
 the reports of his speeches during that cam- 
 paign, or that the Senator from Massachu- 
 setts deliberately falsihed Mr. Stanton ; and I 
 am content that the American people shall 
 judge between them. 
 
LB S 12 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 ||ljf!!JL'll|||i!U|lllil|ii|i|ri||iiii 
 
 013 786 571 3% 
 
I.J.. « «J« 
 
 ^:« «i. 
 
 i 1 t '^ 
 
 J. -A Am :4 M'i" 
 
 .:t .t « ■1 i «■* ■ 
 
 
 
 ^■^: M .«; 1, «i fi « * « « ■«; 
 
 4 '^ 1.,* ,t € » f- 4 < '4 ■«! "i 
 
 t f ^t, :» '«: ■# ,i ^' « ■« 5* li 
 
 ^'^J*-.J^j^.*. *: % .fi »>. i It »: i % i M 
 
 •' * f »: 4 % 4 # "* '»; 
 , . . , , ., .i «: i » # *'' •■' ■■' ■■■' 
 
 t ■ ,t 
 
 * 'I .* 
 
 I '1 * f ■(*■;: 
 i * I < - 
 
 '-■ .{ I ,| I"* 
 
 'v^;«.« ,:^ ,<^ ■« ., .-,, 
 
 ^\< < .f ,t-,f # * « 
 
 •■ % f -Hi .* * 4 ■-' ■ 
 
 « i t ," '•' 
 
 
 ^•i\l'''i' 
 
 * i ii 'it '* 
 
 * * 
 
 a"a! " 
 
 A M M A 
 
 
 6 t f' 
 
 
 ;* t ""<" 
 
 '4 'm 
 
 k ■*> t « I 
 
 
 4^ H. % H 
 
 ■■"' M. i ." 
 
 ;■'# 'g i ■# ''^tj 'i ^iii'4 
 t f 4 f ■«' 4 i-4 -I; 
 
 t: i .% t € t t 'i i 
 
 =5'v ^) % "». 
 
 t ■# € 
 
 0, ' f i 
 
 i Us. 
 
 € .4 
 
 #■ J/'l -^