Relcrm and Purity in Government— Neutral Duties. Sale of Arms to Belligerent France. 671 S953 opv 1 SPEECH HON. CHARLES SUMNER, OF MA^SSA.CHUSETTS, DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES FEBRUARY 28, 1872. WASHINGTON: F. & J. RIVES & GEO. A.. BAILEY, BEPORTBRS AND PRINTEUS OF TUE DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 1872. . 5«^ 53 Reform and Purity in Government — Neutral Duties. Sale of Arms to Belliserent France. The Senate having under consideration the reso- lution of Mr. Sumner to inquire into the sale of arms to Franco- Mr. SUMNER said: Mr. President: Besides the unaccustomed interest which this debate excites, I can- not fail to note that it has wandered far beyond any purpose of mine, and into fields where I have no desire to follow. In a few plain re- marks I shall try to bring it back to the real issue, which I hope to present without passion or prejudice. I declare only the rule of my life when I say that nothing shall fall from me to-day which is not prompted by the love of truth and the desire for justice ; but you will pardon me if I remember that there is some- thing on this planet higher than the Senate or any Senator, higher than any public function- ary, higher than any political party : it is the good name of the American people and the purity of Government, which must be saved from scandal. In this spirit and with this aspiration I shall speak today. In considering this resolution we must not forget the peculiar demands of the present moment. An aroused community in the com- mercial metropolis of our country has unex- pectedly succeeded in overthrowing a corrupt ring by which millions of money had been sacrificed. Tammany has been vanquished. Here good Democrats vied with Republicans. The country was thrilled by the triumph, and insisted that it should be extended. Then came manifestations against abuses of the civil service generally, and especially in that other Tammany, the New York custom-house. The call for investigation at last prevailed in this Chamber, and the newspapers have been burdened since with odious details. Every- body says there must be reform, so that the Government in all its branches shall be above suspicion. The cry for reform is everywhere — j from New York to New Orleans. Within a I few days we hear of a great meeting, amount- ' ing to ten thousand, in the latter city, with- out distinction of party, calling for reform; and the demand is echoed from place to place. j Reform is becoming a univer.sal watchword. I In harmony with tbiscry is the appointment of a Civil Service Commission which has pro- posed mild measures looking to purity and independence in officeholders. Amidst these transactions, occupying the attention of the country, certain facts are re- ported, tending to show abuses in the sale of arms at the Ordnance Office, exciting at least suspicion in that quarter, and this is aggra- vated by a seeming violation of neutral duties at a critical moment, when on various grounds the nation was bound to peculiar care. It appeared as if our neutral duties were sacri- ficed to money-making, if not to official job- bers. The injunction of lago seemed to be obeyed: "But put money in thy purse." These things were already known in Europe, especially through a notorious trial and then by a legislative inquiry, so as to become a j public scandal. It was time that something I should be done to remove the suspicion. This could only be by a searching investigation in such way as to satisfy all at home and abroad that there was no whitewashing. In proportion to t'le magnitude of the ques- tion and the great interests involved, whether of money or neutral duty, was the correspond- ing responsibility on our part. Here was a case ior action without deluy. Under these circumstances I brought forward the present motion. Here I acted in entire harmony with that movement, now so much ap- plauded, which overthrew Tammany, and that other movement which has exposed the Cus- tom-House. Its object was inquiry into the sale of arms. This was the objective point. But much of this debate has turned on points merely formal, if not entirely irrelevant. More than once it has been asserted that I am introducing "politics," and then we have been reminded of the Presidential election, which, to certain Senators, is a universal prompter. I ask for reform, and the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Morton] seizing the party bugle sounded "To arms." But I am not tempted to follow him. I have nothing to say of the President or of the Presidential election. The Senator cannot make me depart from the rule I have laid down for myself 1 introduce no " politics," but only a question which has become urgent, affecting the civil service of the country. Now, sir, I have been from the beginning in favor of civil service reform. I am the author of the first bill on that subject ever introduced into Congress, as long ago as the winter of 1864. I am for a real reform that shall reach the highest as well as the lowest, and I know no better way to accomplish this beneficent result than by striving at all times for purity in the administration of Government. There- fore, when oflBcials fail under suspicion, I should feel myself disloyal to the Government if I did not insist on the most thorough inquiry. So I have voted in the past, so I must vote in the future. Call you this politics? Not in the ordinary sense of the term. It is only hon- esty and a just regard for the public weal. Then it has been said that I am a French agent, and even a Prussian agent — two in one. Sir, I am nothing but a Senator, whose atten- tion was first called to this matter by a dis- tinguished citizen not named in this debate. Since then I have obtained such information with regard to it as was open to me — all going to develop a case for inquiry. I should say nothing more in reply to this allegation but for the vindictive personal as- sault made upon a valued friend, the Mr.rquis souri [Mr. SciiURz] has already spoken for him, but I claim this privilege also. Besides his own merits this gentleman is commended to Americans by his association with the two Fretich names most cherished in our country, La Fayette and DeTocqueville. I have known him from the very day of his arrival in Wash- ington early in the spring of 1805, and have seen him since, in unbroken friendship, almost daily. Shortly after his arrival I took him with me on a visit to Mr. Lincoln at the front, close upon the capture of Richmond. This stranger began his remarkable intimacy with American life by several days in the society of the President only one week before his death. He was by the side of the President in his last visit to a military hospital, and when he last shook hands with the soldiers. Also when he made his last speech from the window of the Executive Mansion, the stranger was his guest standing by his side. From that time down to this day of accusation his inti- macies have extended beyond those of any other foreigner. His studies of our institu- tions have been minute and critical, being second only to those of his late friend De Tocqueville. Whether conversing on his own country or on ours, he is always at home. If at any time the Marquis de Chambrun sustained oificial relations with the French Government, or was its agent, he never spoke of it to me : nor did I ever know it until the papers produced by the Senator from Iowa. Our conversation was always that of friends, and on topics of general interest, not of busi- ness. Though ignorant of any official rela- tions with his own Government, I could not fail to know his close relations with members of our Government, ending in his recent employment to present our case in French for the Geneva tribunal, an honorable and confidential service, faithfully performed. The Senator from Indiana knew of the arms question some five months before the meeting ot Congress. I did not. It v/as after the session began, and just before the holidays, that I first knew of it. And here my informant was not a foreigner, but, as I have alrealy said, a dis- tinguished citizen. The French "spy," as he is so happily called, though with me daily,, never spoke of it ; nor did I speak of it to him. By and by the Senator from Missouri men- tioned it, and then in my desire to know tke 5 evidence affecting persons here, if any such existed, I spoke to my French friend. This was only a few days before the resolu- tion. Such is the history of ray relations with the accused. There is nothing to disguise ; noth- ing that I should not do again. I know no rule of senatorial duty or of patriotism which can prevent me from obtaining information of any kind from anybody, especially when the object is to pursue fraud and to unmask abuse. Is not a French gentleman a compe- tent witness? Once the black could not tes- tify against the white, and now in some places the testimony of a Chinese is rejected. But I tolerate no such exclusion. Let me welcome knowledge always, and from every quarter. Hail holy light! no matter from what star or what nation it may shine ! And this gentleman, fresh from a confidential service to our own Government, enjoying num- erous intimacies with American citizens, asso- ciated with illustrious names in history and literature, and immediately connected with one of the highest functionaries of the pres- ent French Government, M. de R6musat, min- ister for foreign affairs, is insulted here as an "emissary" and a "spy;" nay, more, France is insulted, for these terms are applied only to the secret agents of an enemy in time of war. But enough. To such madness of error and vindictive accusation is this defense carried. Another charge is that I am making a case for Prussia against our own country. Oh ! uo. I am making a case for nobody. I sim- ply try to relieve my country from an odious suspicion and to advance the cause of good government. The Senator from Indiana sup- poses that this effort of mine, having such objects, niay prejudice the emperor of Ger- many against us in the arbitration of the San Juan question. The Senator does not pay a lofty compliment to that enlightened and vic- torious ruler. Nay, sir, the very suggestion of the Senator is an insult to him, which he is too just to resent, but which cannot fail to excite a smile of derision. Surely the Sen- ator was not in earnest. The jest of the Senator, offered for argu- ment, seoms to forget that all these things are notorious in Europe, through the active press of Paris and London. Why, sir, our own State Department furnishes official evidence that the alleged sale of arms to the French by our Government is known in Berlin itself, right under the eyes of the emperor. Our minister there, Mr. Bancroft, in his dispatch of January 7, 1871, furnishes the following testimony from the London Times: " During the Crimean war, arms and munitions of war had been freely exported from Pruaaia to Rus- sia; and recently, rilled cannon and ammunition have been furnished to the French in enormous quan- tities, not only by prirntc American traders, but by the Vfar Department at Washington." These latter words are italicized in the offi- cial publication of our Government, and thus blazoned to the world, I do not adduce them to show that the War Department did sell arms to belligerent France ; but that even in Berlin the imputation upon us was known and actually reported by our minister. If the latter made any observations on this imputation, I know not ; for at this point in his dispatch are those convenient asterisks which are the sub- stitute, for inconvenient revelations. In the same spirit with the last triviality, but in the anxiety to clutch at something, it is said that the Alabama claims are endangered by this inquiry. Very well, sir. On this point I am clear. If these historic claims, so interest- ing.to the American people, are to be pressed at the cost of purity in ourown Government, they are not worth the terrible price. Better give them up at once. Let them all go, every dol- lar. -'First pure and then peaceable ;'■ above all things purity. .Sir, I have from the beginning insisted that England aliould be held to just account for her violation of international duty toward us. Is that any reason why I sliould not also insist upon inquiry into the conduct of officials at home to the end thai the Government may be saved from reproach? Surely we shall be stronger — infinitely stronger — in demanding our own rights, if we show a determination to allow no wrong among ourselves. Our example must not be quoted against us at any time. Especially must it not be allowed to harden into precedent. But this can be prevented only by prompt correction, so that it shall be withoutauthority. Therefore, because I would have my country irresistible in its demands do I insist that it'shall place itself above all sus- picion. The objection of Senators is too much like the old heathen c;y, ''Our country, right or wrong.*' Unhappy words, which dethrone God and exilt the Devil I I am for our coun- ti7 with the aspiration that it may be always right ; but I am for nothing wrong. When I hear of wrong, I insist at all hazards that it shall be made right, knowing that in this way 1 best serve my country and every just cause. This same objection assumes another form equally groundless when it is said that I re- flect upon our country and hurt its good name. Oh, nol They reflect upon our country, and hurt its good name who at the first breath of suspicion fail to act. Our good name is not to be preserved by covering up anything. Not in secrecy but in daylight zanst we live. What sort of good name is that which has a cloud gathering about it? Our duty is to dis- pel the cloud. Especially is this the duty of the Senate. Here at least must be that hon- est independence which shall insist at all times upon purity in the Government, no matter what officeholders are exposed. Again it is said that our good name cannot be compromised by these suspicions. This is a mistake. Any suspicion of wrong is a com- promise, all the more serious when it concerns not only money but the violation of neutral obligations. And the actual fact is precisely according to reason. Now while we debate, the national character is compromised at Paris, at London, at Berlin, at Geneva, where all these things are known as touch as in this Chamber. But your indifference, especially after this debate, will not tend to elevate the national character either at home or abroad. Such are some of the objections to which I reply. They are words only, as Hamlet says, " Words, words, words." From words let us pass to things. Mr. President, 1 come now to the simple question before the Senate, which I presented originally, whether there is not sufiicient rea- son for inquiry into the sale of arms during the French and German war? I state the question thus broadly. The inquiry is into the sale of arms; and this opens two ques- tions, first, of international duty, and secondly, of misfeasance in our officials, the latter involv- ing what may be compendiously called the money question. My object is simply to show grounds for inquiry; and I naturally begin with the rule of international duty. In the discharge of neutral obligations a nation is bound to good faith. This is the supreme rule to which all else is subordinate. This is the starting point of all that is done. Without good faith neutral obligations must fail. In proportion to the character of this requirement must be the completeness of its observance. There can be no evasion, not a jot. Any evasion is a breach, without the bravery of open violation. But evasion may be sometimes, by closing the eyes to existing facts, or even by acting without sufficient in- quiry. These things are so plain and entirely reasonable as to be self-evident. Now, nothing can be more clear than that no neutral nation is permitted to furnish arms and war material to a belligerent Power. Such is a simple statement of the law. I do not cite authorities, as I did it amply on a former occasion. But there is an excellent author whom I would add to the list as worthy of consideration, especially at this moment in view of the loose pretensions put forth in the debate. I refer to Mr. Manning, who, in hia Commentaries, thus teaches neutral duty : "It is no interference with the right of a third party to say that he shall not carry to my enemy instrument^ with which I am to be attacked. Such commerce is, on the other hand, a deviation from neutrality, or rather would be so if it were the act of a Slate and not of individuals."— J/awni/ip'* Law of Natione, p. 281. The distinction is obvious between what can be done by the individual and what can be done by the State. The individual may play the merchant and take the risk of capture; but the State cannot play the merchant in dealing with a belligerent. Of course if the foreign Power is at peace, there is no question ; but when the Power has become belligerent, then it is excluded from the market. So far as that Power is concerned all sales must be suspended. The interdict is peremptory and absolute. In such a case there can be no sale knowingly without mixing in the war, precisely as France mixed in the war of our Revolution in those muskets sent by the witty Beaumar- chais, which England resented by open war. And this undoubted principle of Interna- tional Law is recognized by the Secretary of War, when he directed the Chief of Ordnance not to entertain any bids from E. Remington & Sons, who had stated that they were agents of the French Government. In giving these orders he only followed the rule of duty on which the country can stand without, question or reproach ; but it remains to be seen whether persons under him did not content them- selves with obeying the order in letter only — breaking it in spirit. I assume that the order ■was given in good faith. Was it obeyed in good faith? Here we start with the admitted postulate that it was wrong to sell arms to France. But if this cannot be done directly, it is idle to say that it can be done indirectly without a violation of good fulih. If it cannot be done openly, it cannot be done privily. If it can- not be done above-board, it caimot be done clandestinely. It is idle to reject the bid of the open agent of a belligerent Power and then at once accept the bid of another who may be a mere man of straw, unless after careful inquiry into his real character. Notiiing can be cleirerthan the duty of the proper officers to consider all bids in the sun- ligiit (if the conspicuous events then passing. A tertilile war was convulsing the Old World. Two mighty nations were in conflict, one of which was already prostrate and disarmed. Meanwliile came bids for arms and war mate- rial, on a gg^niic scale — on a scale absolutely unprecedented. Plainly these powerful bat- teries, these muskets by the hundred thou- sand and these cartiiilges by the million were for tiie (lisiirmed belligerent and nobody else. It was impossible not to spe it. It is insulting to common sense to imagine it otherwise. Who else could need arms and war material to the amount of $4,000,000 at once? Now, it appears by the dispatches of the French j consul general at New York, which I find in | an official document, that on the 22d Octo- ber, lb70, he telegraphed to the armament commission at Tours: "The prices of adjudication havR been lOD.OOO muskets :it «9 30; 40,000 at 812 30; 100,000 at $12 25; 6O;000 0O0 c.irtridges .at $16 30 tho thousand. Alto- gether will) the cominisgion to Retninsrton and the incideutul expenses more than four uiilliou dollars." Saoh gi'^antic purchases made at one time or in the space of a few days could have but one destination. It is weakness to imagine otherwise. Obviously, plainly, unquestion- ably, they were for the disarmed belligerent. The telegraph each morning proclaimed the constant fearful struggle, and we all became daily spectators. In the terrible blaze, filling the heavens with lurid flame, it was impossible not to see the exact condition of the two bel- ligerents — Germany always victorious, France still rallying for the desperate battle. But the officials of the Ordnance Bureau saw this as plainly as the people. Therefore were they warned, so that every applicant for arms and war material on a large scale was open to just suspicion. These officials were put on their guard as much as if a notice or caveat had been filed at the War Department. In neg- lecting that commanding notice, in overruling that unprecedented caccat, so far as to allow these enormous supplies to be forwarded to the disarmed belligerent, they failed in that proper care required by the occasion. If I Said that they failed in good faiih, I should only give the conclusion of law on unquestion- able facts. In the case of the Santissima Trinidad, Chief Justice Marshall, after exposing an at- tempt to evade our neutral obligations by aa ingenious cover, exclaimed in words which he borrowed from an earlier period of our history, but which have been often quoted since, '-This would, indeed, be a fraudulent neutrality, disgraceful to our Government and of which no nation would be the dupe." (7 Wheaton Reports, 337. ) I forbear at present to apply these memorable words, which show with what indignant language our great Chief Justice blasted an attempt to eva ie our neutral obligations. In calling it fraudulent be was not deterred by the petty cry of a filse patri- otism that his judgment might affect the good name of our country. Full well he knew that national character could suffer only where fraud is maintained. I doubt much if the true rule can be laid down in better words than those I quoted on a former occasion from the S|)ani.ih minister at Stockholm, denouncing the !