U. S. Senate Speeches and Remarks of Carl Schurz/Sales of Arms to French Agents 5

by Carl Schurz

Sales of Arms to French Agents

---

SPEECH OF HON. CARL SCHURZ,

OF MISSOURI,

In the United States Senate,

February 27, 1872.

Mr. SCHURZ said:

Mr. President: It is not my intention to make another long speech on this subject. After having listened to the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen] yesterday, I endeavored to obtain the floor to reply to him on the spot, but was not permitted to do so; and it is now in response to some remarks made by him that I rise to make only a very few observations. I shall merely try to gather up the odds and ends of argument as they, after this protracted debate, seem to be lying around loose.

I cannot refrain from saying that the speech of the Senator from New Jersey was very fine. It was certainly one of the best pieces of beautiful speaking I ever heard; and I must confess it is with a regretful sentiment of duty that I have to break into the sweet strains of his music with the rough language of truth; for I am only a plain-spoken man, and the compliments he showered upon me yesterday are, I fear, not deserved. When he spoke of my skill as a debater he decidedly exaggerated my merits. In fact, I do not pretend to possesses any skill of that kind. At any rate, I have had very little experience, being but a young member of this body, having never before served in a parliamentary assembly, and having but rarely occupied the attention of the Senate. In point of experience I recognize my decided inferiority to the honorable Senator from New Jersey; and if there is anything forcible in what I say, it is not owing to skill or art, but it is the simple power of truth plainly and directly expressed; and if there is any weakness on the other side, it is by no means a want of skill or experience, but it is the natural weakness of arguments intended to deny what is clear and to defend what is wrong.

Sir, it seems to me that those who assail the Senator from Massachusetts and myself, him for having brought forward and me for having advocated this resolution, are now reduced to their last resorts. We observe in the speeches made against us a most brilliant absence of argument, and on the other hand a boldness of assertion which is perfectly magnificent. Every gentleman commences by saying that we as well as the whole world must be convinced by this time that there is absolutely nothing in this inquiry, and having said that, gentlemen seem to take it for granted that all mankind is now convinced. Sir, I must confess that to me such an assertion has a somewhat childlike sound, and I doubt not it is received by the American people with a broad smile of irony.

There was one thing which I heard with regret drop from the lips of the Senator from New Jersey yesterday. It sounded somewhat like an appeal to the native feeling, the native prejudice in this country — an appeal founded apparently upon two things: that the facts from which this resolution has sprung were calculated to affect the German-born citizens of this country as to their political sympathies, and that I, who happen to be a native of a foreign country, was taking part in this debate. We had listened to already a similar strain from the Senator from Indiana, who predicted that if the foreign-born element was driven to one side, necessarily the Know-Nothing element would rise up again on the other.

Sir, I understand that kind of language; I understood it when it was pronounced; and I am here ready to meet it.

Let us see whether really a foreign people has anything to do with this question. The Senator from New Jersey said yesterday, and it was reiterated by the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. West] to-day, that if this is not a question of international importance, if it is not designed on our part to show a breach of our neutral duties toward another Power, then there is no question involved in it at all. Did I understand the Senator from New Jersey correctly? I do not want to misrepresent him.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Please state it again.

Mr. SCHURZ. I understood the Senator from New Jersey to say yesterday that if this is not a question of international importance if it is not designed to show that on our part a breach of neutral duties was committed, then this is no question of importance at all. Was that it?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. That was it substantially.

Mr. SCHURZ. Now, sir, does the Senator from New Jersey, or the Senator from Louisiana who has just spoken, really design to accuse the Senator from Massachusetts and myself of making up a case for Germany? Is the Senator from New Jersey candid in this matter?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I will answer the Senator, with his permission.

Mr. SCHURZ. Certainly.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I certainly do not intend any such thing. I have never in the course of debate, that I am aware of, impugned the motives of any Senator, or attributed to him anything unbecoming a Senator of the United States; but when a resolution is presented to be considered, I speak of the resolution and give my opinions on that, and I think that is the effect of the resolution. I do not think the Senator is unpatriotic, but I think the measure is unpatriotic.

Mr. SCHURZ. Very well. Then, as I understand him, the Senator does not impute either to the Senator from Massachusetts or myself any designs or interests or sympathies which are not purely American. I hear the disclaimer with pleasure. But the Senator says that the effect of the passage of this resolution and the inquiry which would follow it would be injurious to American interests. Is not that it? Now, sir, let us look once more at the facts with candor. Is there now, was there ever a serious danger of international difficulty between the United States and Germany connected with this business? If there was, it was at the time the arms were shipped, and everybody in Germany just as well as in the United States knew that they were going, cargo after cargo, to France. If there was any such danger subsequently, it was when the circumstances surrounding this case came to light in the trial of Place and before the investigating committee of the French National Assembly, and certainly the case appeared there much darker than it would in all probability issue from any investigation to be instituted by the Senate of the United States.

But now all the information which might lead to a charge of a breach of neutral duties by the American Government having been before the world, even in its most unfavorable and worst aspect, long before we began to discuss this matter, for a year or longer, and no remonstrance having been made, I ask the Senator from New Jersey in all candor, does not that prove that even when there was seemingly a practical provocation for a remonstrance as a foundation for a claim against the United States, that then the German Government desired and was determined to ignore this matter? For if it had not been determined to ignore it, would that Government not have availed itself of its most natural and most tempting opportunity?

Mr. EDMUNDS. May I ask a question?

Mr. SCHURZ. Certainly.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I understood my friend to speak of “a practical provocation.” Does he mean to say that there was in fact a practical provocation?

Mr. SCHURZ. I mean to say simply this: that when information went abroad that such and such things were going on, just as information went from England to Germany about similar proceedings, might I not call it an apparent practical provocation? Well, sir, if then no steps were taken by the German Government, does the Senator really think that the German Government will do it now, when one branch of our Government orders an investigation, and shows its willingness thereby to detect that which was wrong, if there was any wrong, and to punish the guilty parties? Is not that perfectly preposterous to assume?

I would ask the Senator from New Jersey to suppose this case: if we during the war had not remonstrated against the building and the letting out of British ports of rebel cruisers, and if the British Parliament had ordered an investigation afterward, of its own motion, without any suggestion from us, without our making any complaints does the Senator from New Jersey think that after having permitted such things during the war to happen, and after seeing that Parliament itself would take the matter in hand to investigate it and to punish the wrong-doers, that then we would complain? Certainly, no just man, no wise man, no generous man in the United States would think of doing such a thing. What would we do? Our country would resound with praise of the British Government. We would feel ourselves bound by bonds of double friendship to the English people, who then would have shown a disposition to be just of its own accord, without compulsion. If that had happened, every generous American would have utterly scouted the idea of asking damages of England, of that great people, demonstrating so nobly its sense of justice, and the friendship between Great Britain and the United States would have become firmer and more cordial than ever before. And as to the British Government itself, the fear of having its action brought home as a dangerous precedent to plague it in the future would have vanished forever, for the very force of that precedent would have been broken by its own voluntary deed. Is not that clear?

Now apply this to our case; and certainly I am very far from comparing the sale of arms to French agents, if such happened, to the building and letting out of rebel cruisers from British ports; but bring it home to ourselves. We are now acting with perfect freedom. There is no remonstrance made against us by any foreign Government. There is no compulsion driving us into anything. The case is not the subject of international transaction, but as it stands to day is most emphatically our own business. And, sir, just the very circumstance that no demand has been made, that no remonstrance has been pointed at us, just that very circumstance will make our action in this matter the more proper, the more noble. If there is a dangerous precedent in this case, does not the Senator from New Jersey see that the facts out of which such a precedent would grow are already in the very worst aspect before the world? And if these facts be correct, as they are taken to be correct by the world abroad, is the Senator from New Jersey ready perhaps to accept the doctrine of international law and of neutral duties illustrated by those facts, not only to be followed by the United States against other nations, but also by other nations against ourselves? If there is a precedent in this matter, is it not our manifest interest by our own just, fearless action, to break its point? If we have been betrayed by some of our agents, is it not our manifest interest to take a correct stand against this wrong by our own free resolution? Mischief can arise only in one way out of this, and that is if we wantonly undertake to defend a false position.

Now, sir, the Senator from Massachusetts and myself are here and there assailed on the score of patriotism. I ask the Senator from New Jersey who were the truest patriots in the British Parliament when the question of letting out the rebel cruisers was being discussed there; were they not the men who denounced the wrong and predicted its consequences? Were not those the men who had the honor of their country most sincerely at heart? Was it not Cobden and Bright whose names I may mention again? They were then accused of making up a case against their country just as we are now. They met that accusation without fear, because they knew they were right. They were not frightened, because they knew their cause was just. And to-day, let me say, it is universally recognized that England would occupy a nobler position among the nations of the earth had their wise, noble, and patriotic counsels been followed.

Mr. EDMUNDS. May I ask my friend a question there?

Mr. SCHURZ. Certainly.

Mr. EDMUNDS. What would he say to Cobden and Bright if they were now at this present moment to introduce a resolution into parliament calling for an inquiry the object of which should be to show that her Majesty's Government (which nobody now knows to be true) had actually been in official communication with the rebels, and had agreed to fit out ships for them — what would he say of Cobden and Bright then?

Mr. SCHURZ. I would say that if information to that effect were already before the world, if the world had reason to believe it, if that information were in such a suggestive shape as that in which the information is in this case, then Cobden and Bright would be perfectly right and patriotic in proposing an investigation, either in order to show that there was no truth in those statements, or if there were to let the guilty parties suffer for it; in either case setting their country right before the world.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Now, may I ask my friend for another moment? The difference in the two cases is that we have no such information of any kind, and therefore my friend answers the case by supposing another which is altogether different.

Mr. SCHURZ. Does the Senator from Vermont assert that there is no important information here? Why, sir, have we not been reading to him here document after document?

Mr. EDMUNDS. Not documents, I beg pardon.

Mr. SCHURZ. Have we not been reading to him here things testified to in French courts?

Mr. EDMUNDS. Yes, Mr. President, the Senator has been reading to us here, after his documents failed him, the same sort of thing that can be read in the correspondence of certain Missouri newspapers about the Senator, which none of us see fit to inquire into, and which everybody may treat with scorn and contempt. If it is the business of a nation to take up all that gossip and scandal and rumor carry around, and make it the subject of investigation, then there are few people, out of the Senate I will say, who should not be the objects of investigation.

Mr. SCHURZ. Mr. President, I think the Senator makes rather light of this subject. We quoted the other day the sworn testimony of Mr. Le Cesne before the court in France in the Place trial. I read it to the Senate; and when it was suggested that it was a mere newspaper report, I then told the Senate that I held in my hands another account which appeared to be the phonographic report of that trial, and I asked to read that too. Do you know what answer I received? I received the answer that I had already got this statement three times into the Globe inside of another Senator's speech, and I should not be permitted to have it the fourth time.

Mr. EDMUNDS. You did not ever receive any such answer from me.

Mr. SCHURZ. No, I received it from the Senator from Indiana. So, after all, sir, it is not a mere newspaper squib, not a mere canard which we are speaking of; it is a statement which comes from as good authority as can be found on that subject.

Have we not had here letters from Mr. Remington; have we not had here a letter from the Secretary of War? Does he doubt these authorities? Does he deny that from these statements information appears which has gone all over the world, not from here, but published abroad long before it was discussed in this body? And yet he will deny that in other places they had material out of which to form an opinion. Ah! sir, we have heard this kind of talk before. The other day the honorable Senator from New York held up a pamphlet charging us with giving aid and comfort to the Democrats in New Hampshire — a pamphlet containing speeches made against corruption in the New York custom-house. What is the moral of this story? It is simply this: “Do not denounce corruption for it may hurt your party!” Apply the language of the Senator from New Jersey and it will be: do not try to discover or denounce that which appears to be wrong, for it may possibly reflect upon your country!

Let me tell you, sir, it is by just such doctrines that parties are corrupted and ruined; it is by just such doctrines and practices that nations are disgraced. Patriotism! Who is the true patriot in this case? He who would advise the great American people sneakingly to cover up what cannot be covered up, in the hope that we may possibly not be challenged for it, or he who, following the example of the truest men of England, endeavors to lift up this Republic to a higher plane of duty, to discover and to set right of her own free will what is wrong, and thus to stand with a pure forehead and with the pride of a good conscience before the world in the full luster of good faith and honor, able to say to the nations around her, “See here; we have done this thing of our own accord; nobody compelled us; nobody asked it of us; our will was free; but we did it because we desired to be just to ourselves in being just to others?” That is what I call patriotism worthy of the great American people.

I must confess, Mr. President, I regretted deeply when I heard the Senator from New Jersey make some allusion to my German nativity, as if he were inclined, not directly, but in some indirect way, to express his apprehension of the possibility that I might be actuated by interests and sympathies not American. He has disclaimed such intention, and I gladly accept his disclaimer; but undoubtedly, from the tenor -of his remarks, such an inference might have been drawn. Let me tell the Senator from New Jersey that although I certainly am not ashamed of having sprung from that great nation whose monuments stand so proudly upon all the battlefields of thought; that great nation which, having translated her mighty goal into action, seems at this moment to hold in her hands the destinies of the Old World; that great nation which for centuries has sent abroad thousands and thousands of her children upon foreign shores with their intelligence, their industry, and their spirit of good citizenship; while I am by no means ashamed of being a son of that nation, yet I may say I am proud to be an American citizen. This is my country. Here my children were born. Here I have spent the best years of my youth and manhood. All the honors I have gained, all the aims of my endeavors, and whatever of hope and promise the future has for me, it is all encompassed in this my new fatherland. My devotion to this great Republic will not yield to that of the Senator from New Jersey, nor to that of any member of this body, nor to that of any man born in this country. I would not shrink from any sacrifice to prove it, as I never did shrink from it. And, sir, for this very reason I want, with every means within our reach, to have that spot washed off with which, apparently, the good name of this Republic has been soiled.

The Senator also intimated yesterday that the German-born American citizens could not entirely forget their old fatherland. Possibly not; but I ask him, should they forget it? Does he not know that those who would meanly and coldly forget their old mother could not be expected to be faithful to their young bride? [Manifestations of applause in the galleries.] Surely, sir, the German-born citizens of this country have demonstrated their fidelity in the hour of danger. When the President of the United States called upon the faithful sons of the Republic to step forward and to brave death on the field of battle, methinks the German-American citizens were not among the last to respond to the summons. Nay, in some places they were even among the first, and it is with pride that I point to the State of Missouri, the key of the Mississippi valley, which, by the prompt action and energetic patriotism of its German-born citizens, was, at the commencement of the rebellion, saved to the Union. No, sir; their thought of the old fatherland did not stand in the way of their fidelity to the new; and even at the time when, by the great events which were taking place on the other side of the ocean, their sympathies were so powerfully aroused, when their fears and hopes concerning those they had left behind were worked up to the highest pitch; even then — I may say it with pride — there was not a German in this country who, in all that excitement, for a moment forgot that he was an American citizens and that his first duty was the observance of the laws of this Republic. No, sir; let not their patriotism be doubted, even if in a case like this they should desire that that friendship which is to exist between the American Republic and the great German nation on the other side of the ocean, a friendship which may become so fruitful of good, should stand upon the firm basis of good faith, mutual confidence, and untarnished honor.

I deny, however, that the international aspect of this question is by any means the most important. No, sir; it is not. I have contended from the very first that in moving this inquiry nothing was contemplated but the vindication of our own laws, and I must confess I was amazed when I heard the Senator from New Jersey argue yesterday that because the violation of a certain statute here did not give offense to Germany, therefore it could be of no concern to us. How important to us the violation of that statute is, I am now going to show.

I listened with some amusement the other day to the Senator from Indiana, [Mr. Morton.] It will be remembered that I put the question to that Senator whether he would consider the statute permitting only the sale of damaged arms or arms otherwise unsuitable for the use of our Army or militia, violated if arms had been sold which were declared by the War Department itself fit to be issued to our own troops. I say I was somewhat amused when I put that question to the Senator from Indiana and I could get neither yes nor no from him. I said then, (and I beg the Senator's pardon if I imputed motives to him which he did not entertain, although there was some reason for the supposition,) that the Senator declined to answer possibly because he was already thinking of what excuse he would have to bring forward for the Administration in so desperate an emergency, the violation of the law being clearly admitted by an official declaration. And sure enough, in an elaborate speech it was gravely argued by the Senator from Indiana that although the War Department declared that certain arms were fit for issue to our own troops, yet the War Department was authorized to sell the same arms under a statute which provided that no arms should be sold which were officially declared suitable for our own troops if there were other arms still more suitable. It was a curious spectacle; but what shall we say of it when we look at the surrounding circumstances? Listen while I read a few paragraphs from the official reports of the chief of ordnance. In his report for 1869 he said:

“The operations at the Springfield armory have been chiefly confined to fabricating the necessary machines, tools, and fixtures required for converting the Springfield rifled muskets into breech-loaders, upon the plan recommended by the ordnance board in January 1868, and approved by the Secretary of War; to the conversion of a small number of muskets, in execution of the order given by the Secretary of War to alter fifty thousand arms, and to cleaning Enfield muskets for sale. The Springfield armory is now adequate to the conversion of two hundred muskets per day of eight hours.”

I read this for the purpose of showing in what way breech-loading rifles were produced for the use of our troops. It was by converting muzzle-loading Springfield muskets into breech-loaders.

Now, sir, I come to the report of 1870. The chief of ordnance then reported as follows:

“The Springfield breech-loading muskets, with which the troops have been armed for more than three years, continue to give satisfaction.”

And the Senator will mark, that that is not the Springfield musket of 1868, but it is the old pattern, for this report was made on the 25th of October, 1870. The chief of ordnance says:

“The Springfield breech-loading muskets with which the troops have been armed for more than three years” —

Before 1868 —

“continue to give satisfaction. There are about thirty-five thousand on hand of the model of 1868. It is believed that the arm is one of the very best that has been devised, and it is worthy of consideration whether the alteration of the Springfield muzzle-loading muskets, upon this system, should not be resumed at once at the national armory, which otherwise will soon be without orders for work.”

And now, sir, this having been reported on the 25th of October, 1870, it was in the following December that the very same arms were sold as unsuitable for the Troops of the United States, as the Senator from Indiana contends.

But now, sir, comes a still more important document. It is the report of 1871, the last. The chief of ordnance says:

“The operations at the Springfield armory have been confined chiefly to the conversion of a small number of Springfield rifle-muskets into breech-loaders for issue to troops” —

Mark you —

“and to the States and colleges; to the manufacture of twenty-two thousand Remington rifles for the Navy Department, and three or four kinds of experimental muskets and carbines for comparative trial by troops in the field. Three of these systems have been put into the hands of the troops, and monthly reports are made to this bureau upon them, as was directed by you on my indorsement of July 8, 1870, submitting the report of the board of officers of June 10, 1870, of which Major General Schofield was president.

“It is expected that sufficient information in regard to these experimental arms will be derived from troops using them to warrant the appointment — some time next summer — of the board which is to select and recommend to the War Department a breech-loading system for adoption for the military service.”

And here it appears that before the adoption of a breech-loading arm has been definitively agreed upon, the Senator from Indiana argues that a certain breech-loading arm had to be sold because it was considered unsuitable for the troops of the United States. But worse than that, sir. I read from the report of the chief of ordnance again:

“It is highly important that this board shall act as soon as possible upon the subject, and that a breech-loading system shall be adopted as soon as possible, and adhered to until a large number of breech-loaders can be made for the Government. Now there are less than ten thousand breech-loading muskets in the arsenals for issue. This number of muskets is not half sufficient to supply the States with the muskets they are now entitled to receive under their apportionment of the permanent appropriation for arming and equipping the militia. It is important that the arms of the States should be like those used by the Government, and I believe the States are anxious to get the same kind of arms. For these reasons I have been anxious to furnish them, to the extent of the ability of the Department and of their credits, with arms like those our troops are armed with, and I have not been willing to encourage any State in getting any other arms. This Department should, as soon as possible, be placed in a condition to fill all proper requisitions by the States upon it, and should also have on hand in store a large number of breech-loading muskets and carbines to meet any emergency that may arise. Ten years ago” —

Mark you —

“the country felt, that not less than a million of muskets should be kept in store in the arsenals. We are making very few arms at present, and for the reason that no breech-loading arm has yet been adopted for our military service.”

What does this mean? It means, on the showing of the chief of ordnance himself, that at this present moment, by the sales of arms that have taken place, this country stands to such extent disarmed. We are speaking of international difficulties lowering around the horizon, how the treaty of Washington is to be set aside, how we may drift into a war, and it will not be forgotten that some time ago rumors were rife of an impending difficulty with Spain. If ruptures had come, what would have been our situation? Look once more at the statute. What does it mean?

“Resolved, &c., That the Secretary of War be, and be is hereby, authorized and directed to cause to be sold, after offer at public sale on thirty days' notice, in such manner and at such times and places, at public or private sale, as he may deem most advantageous to the public interest” —

What?

“the old cannon, arms, and other ordnance stores now in possession of the War Department which are damaged or otherwise unsuitable for the least military service, or for the militia of the United States.”

And now we have here an official report from the chief of ordnance testifying, in the first place, that just when those arms were sold the breech-loading arm of 1866, a large quantity of which was disposed of, was still in the hands of the troops, and was considered a very good arm; and, secondly, that we want a million breech-loading muskets in our arsenals for the purpose of providing against an emergency. And just such breech-loaders were sold in large quantities. What does the statute mean? It means, if it has any sense at all, that only such arms should be sold as are useless for our troops. Now, what do we want for our troops? We want breech loaders, for the breech-loader is now the only small arm that has any efficiency upon the battlefield. General Dyer says we ought to have a million of them. How are breech-loaders to be obtained? In the first place, let me tell the Senator from Indiana, by keeping those we have; and in the second place, by manufacturing new ones, or by transforming Springfield muskets that are fit for such transformation into breech loaders as rapidly as we can.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Does it not cost more to make that transformation than to make new arms?

Mr. SCHURZ. The chief of ordnance himself says that that is the method which has for a long time been followed at the Springfield armory.

Mr. EDMUNDS. And is found to be entirely inadequate and too costly.

Mr. SCHURZ. I think the Senator is mistaken. He refers to something else. He means in all probability the change of calibers which is very costly; but certainly the Senator from Vermont will not make the Senate believe that it is cheaper to make an entirely new arm than to take the stock, the barrel, the lock, and the bayonet of an old musket and then put a new breech-piece into it, thus transforming it into a breech-loading arm.

Now, sir, if you want to appreciate the futility of the argument of the Senator from Indiana, let me ask him the question whether he would consider it safe that all the guns still fit for service should be sold, when a new model appears preferable, before a sufficient supply of arms of that new model can be obtained? They are now expecting to change their arms in the infantry service of other Governments. They do so in Germany. Does he think that there would be any Government improvident enough, say Germany, for instance, to dispose of the old needle-guns and sell them off before they have a sufficient supply of the new gun to arm the military forces of the country? Make such a proposition to such a Government and they will denounce it as absurd, as a positive treachery to the true interests of the country; and I think if the statute which I have in my hand had any meaning it was that its restrictive clause should prevent just such a contingency.

Now, sir, imagine a war to come on us. There will be a cry for arms. We shall labor under the same embarrassment under which we staggered in the spring of 1861. We shall send agents into foreign countries to pick up muskets for us. We want guns. Where are they? Once we had a good supply of them that might have been transformed into breech-loaders. Where are they? Remington bought them and carried them to France. We want breech-loaders for our troops. Where are they? Once they were in our arsenals, not found unfit, and at that very time in the hands of our troops. We want them, and where are they now? Lawyer Thomas Richardson, from Ilion, New York, bought many thousands of them, and Remington sent them to France. With these arms, described officially by the War Department as fit for issue to our own troops, I maintain that the law was sold, and with the law and these arms I maintain that the defensive capacity of the country was sold; and if you want the proof of it look into the official reports of the chief of ordnance himself.

Where now is the argument of the Senator from Indiana that the War Department, under a restrictive law expressly forbidding the sale of arms which are fit for issue to our own troops, could still sell arms which were reported upon by the chief of ordnance himself as fit for issue to our troops? Will the Senator from New Jersey still insist that this violation of our own law is of no concern to us because it is of no concern to the Government of Germany?

Mr. President, I give notice that I shall move an amendment to this resolution, to inquire also whether breech-loaders and other muskets capable of being transformed into breech-loaders were sold in such numbers as to seriously impair the defensive capacity of the country in case of war.

There is another point in the speech of the Senator from New Jersey to which I desire to refer; it is the general-order business. It has frequently appeared to me that the President of the United States has friends who lack one great quality of which they stand very much in need, and that is discretion; for if they did not lack that quality they surely would not be so zealous in dragging the general-order business before the United States Senate.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I ask my friend from Missouri whether he counts himself among that number?

Mr. SCHURZ. Let me tell the Senator from Vermont there was only one time when I referred to the general-order business, and that was when we ordered the investigation to be made into the affairs of the New York custom-house.

Mr. EDMUNDS. That does not answer the question.

Mr. SCHURZ. Since then I have not mentioned it except when I was provoked in reply to others.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I asked the Senator from Missouri whether he counted himself among the number of those patriots who are friendly to the interests of the President in his official capacity?

Mr. SCHURZ. Certainly, to the best and truest interest of the President I have always been friendly.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I am glad to know it.

Mr. SCHURZ. Now, sir, let me restate the case. There was a system of robbery in New York called the general-order business, conducted by two men whose names are Leet and Stocking. That general-order business was investigated by a committee appointed by Congress. It was discovered to be a sink of iniquity, and that committee made report accordingly. The merchants of New York protested against it in strong language and asked for a change. The Secretary of the Treasury sent a commission to New York to inquire into the same matter. That commission reported against it also, and the Secretary of the Treasury pronounced his opinion in conformity with that report. Then, in discussing this matter, I expressed the opinion that since the merchants of New York had protested against this scandalous abuse, since a committee of Congress had investigated it and found it to be such, since the Secretary of the Treasury had investigated it and pronounced his opinion against it, and still that abuse was continued, there must be a power sustaining it stronger than public opinion as expressed by the mercantile community of New York, stronger than the committees of Congress, and stronger than the Secretary of the Treasury himself. For this I have been frequently taken to task, and yet nobody has so far been found to deny or confute the justice of the conclusion.

The Senator from New Jersey yesterday at last seemed to discover a way out of the difficulty, at least satisfactory to himself. He tells us that that power may be stronger than public opinion, stronger than the Secretary of the Treasury, stronger than the committees of Congress, but still the President may be answerable for nothing, for that power may be even stronger than the President himself. What can this power be?

The Senator, from New Jersey tells us that under the law the collector of the port of New York has the regulation of the warehouses under his control, and is responsible for them. Did I understand him correctly?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I did not say so.

Mr. SCHURZ. If the Senator will restate his own position I shall be very much obliged to him.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I said it had been insisted by the collectors that inasmuch as they and their bondsmen were liable for the delivery of goods, the discretion was with them as to what rules should be formed; that the Secretary of the Treasury had told me he had neither admitted nor denied that to be the law, but that he had always felt very much indisposed to make any rules and regulations which were contrary to the will and opinion of those who had to enforce them, and that recently he had had the law examined by one of his law officers, and the opinion was given that the law was as the collectors had heretofore insisted.

Mr. SCHURZ. Very well. Then, sir, according to what the Senator from New Jersey states, there has long been a doubt as to whether the Secretary of the Treasury — that is to say the executive department of this Government, the Administration — was in any way by law authorized to interfere with the arrangements made by the collector of customs at New York in this respect. Is not that it? I address myself to my honorable friend again.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I did not hear the Senator.

Mr. SCHURZ. I say, according to the statement of the Senator from New Jersey, it appears that there has long been a doubt in the mind of the Secretary of the Treasury whether he himself — that is to say, the executive department of this Government — was by law authorized to interfere with the arrangements made by the collector of customs at New York in this respect, meaning the warehouses. Is not that it?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. If the Senator from Missouri calls on me to reply to him, he must let me do it in my own way. The Senator is a very dexterous debater; he is a very skillful fencer; and, not content with his superior skill, he likes to take (and he does it in a very friendly way) his opponent by the button and lead him to some spot where the sod is a little slippery and he has the advantage of the ground, and then show the spectators how readily be can trip him up. I would prefer that the Senator make his own argument, and if there is anything at the end of it that I think needs answering, I will then answer it.

Mr. SCHURZ. I think the Senator mistakes my purpose altogether. I merely wanted to know whether I was stating his position correctly, for I was animated by a desire not to misinterpret him. If this was so, if there was a doubt in the mind of the Secretary of the Treasury whether the executive department of this Government had any legal power to interfere with the arrangements of the collector of customs at New York with reference to the warehouses, then the case stands thus: here is a great abuse — the general-order business — a notorious scandal. The executive department is in doubt whether it is legally authorized to interfere with that system of robbery or not, and it would appear that by the executive department of this Government for a whole year that doubt was resolved in favor of the system of robbery.

Mr. HARLAN. I desire to ask the Senator from Missouri a question if he will yield for that purpose.

Mr. SCHURZ. Certainly.

Mr. HARLAN. He has over and over again pronounced the system adopted in New York for storing goods on which duty has not been paid as a system of robbery and corruption which this Government has refused to correct. I have not heard him yet state what his plan of remedy is. How can these difficulties be removed? Has he as a Senator proposed any remedy? Has he suggested any to the executive department? I want to hear what the remedy is. If this general-order system is so bad, what is the amendment which he proposes to the bad law or the bad rule?

Mr. SCHURZ. I will tell the Senator. In the first place, remove the rascals who stand at the head of the establishment.

Mr. HARLAN. Very well; that does not go to the system itself. It is the system he is denouncing, and not the individual men, as I understand him. Now, the system is the thing found fault with. What is the remedy?

Mr. SCHURZ. Let me say to the Senator from Iowa, in the first place, that we are not discussing that point; and in the second place ---

Mr. HARLAN. I supposed we were discussing the arms question.

Mr. SCHURZ. I shall yield to the Senator from Iowa as soon as I have finished my sentence.

In the second place, the present arrangements were made not by legislative but by executive action, and having been made by executive action they could be unmade by executive action.

Mr. HARLAN. When were they made?

Mr. SCHURZ. The present arrangements were made under Collector Grinnell, and the general-order business on the East river was made a monopoly in the hands of Leet and Stocking under Collector Murphy.

Mr. HARLAN. Long ago! I heard the same question discussed on this floor more than fifteen years ago, and the very same complaints were brought forward then that are now being brought forward by the Senator from Missouri, as the Globe will show.

Mr. SCHURZ. The Senator from Iowa mistakes the case. A general-order business existed before, to be sure, but the general-order business was very differently managed from what it is now.

Mr. EDMUNDS. In what respect?

Mr. SCHURZ. In the first place it was more honestly managed; it was more economically managed with regard to the merchants; they were not plundered as they are now.

Mr. HARLAN. If the honorable Senator from Missouri will pardon me, that goes to the character of the man who is in, and he himself aided to put these men in by his vote advising and consenting to their appointment. I suppose we are not here to discuss the character of the man, but of the system, the abuses of the system, which he says is all wrong and rotten, which he thinks can be corrected — I mean the general-order system. If the general-order business is all wrong and all rotten, I want him to state here frankly and openly the remedy which he proposes for that system. It is an old one.

Mr. SCHURZ. I have already given him one remedy, and that is to remove the rascals who stand at the head of it and put honest men in their place. Now, the Senator says that I am responsible with the rest that they were put there. He certainly will not tell me that those who are standing at the head of the Government warehouses at New York have had to pass this Senate for confirmation.

Mr. HARLAN. The chief has had to pass the Senate.

Mr. SCHURZ. Yes, Collector Murphy had, to be sure; and if the Senator wants to know by whose vote he was made collector — I am not authorized to reveal secrets — not mine, though. [Laughter.] No, sir, the system, as it was before it was made a monopoly, could have been managed by honest men in an honest way, and if it has been mismanaged ---

Mr. HARLAN. If the Senator will pardon me, I want him to state to the Senate distinctly what his remedy is. Is this merely a complaint against some custom-house officer or other, or is it the system that he desires to correct? If there is some other plan he desires to propose to correct the wrong, what is it? We may cavil here all day about the character of a man, whether he is an honest man or a dishonest man. The House of Representatives can correct that, perhaps, with the aid of the Senate. If men in office have been violating the law and have become corrupt, they can be arraigned before the Senate of the United States, and they can be removed, without the intervention of the Executive. The point is not as to the remedy if these men are rotten; but I understand this part of the discussion to turn on the system which has been pronounced here to be rotten from beginning to end.

Mr. SCHURZ. I desire to tell the Senator from Iowa that the discussion did not turn upon the system, but turned upon the appointments of those identical men who had made the system a system of robbery.

Mr. HARLAN. I wish to ask the Senator, then, if he thinks it within the province of the Senate of the United States to examine into the official character of the civil officers of this Government; if we are not overstepping the province of the Senate when we undertake to examine into the official character of civil officers? The Constitution of the United States makes the Senate the tribunal for their trial, and very clearly points it out to be the duty of the members of the House of Representatives, the Representatives of the people themselves, to arraign civilians who do not do their duty. If he wishes to arraign a civilian and put him on trial, is he not overstepping his duty as a Senator?

Mr. SCHURZ. Is the Senator from Iowa entirely unacquainted with the fact that last year a committee of investigation went to New York, investigated this case, and reported all these facts? Is he entirely unacquainted with the fact that but a few weeks ago another committee of this body sat there and investigated this case and the conduct of these very identical gentlemen? And now he will come here and tell us that, after all these investigations have been had, it is entirely improper for us to discuss the results of these investigations!

Mr. HARLAN. If the Senator desires an answer, I am aware of the fact that the honorable Senator himself was a member of the committee that was supposed to have investigated these wrongs of which he complains, and I have not yet seen the bill brought in by him for the correction of the evil. The committee report a state of facts and propose no remedy. It is the remedy I call for. I wish to know how he proposes to correct these evils. He says they exist, he seems to think them inherent in the general-order business. Now, what is the means he proposes for their correction? Is it merely the removal of an incumbent? Is the system good enough in itself? Has he any remedy to propose?

Mr. SCHURZ. Mr. President, I think we all feel for the embarrassment under which the Senator labors. Here is a great abuse exposed; here are persons in question who were put there by the executive department of this Government, persons of whom we know that they have had their hands elbow deep in the pockets of the merchants of New York, and in order to divert our attention from that point ---

Mr. HARLAN. I will not allow the Senator to escape the point I present. Has he proposed a remedy ?

Mr. SCHURZ. There is a bill before the Senate now which probably will furnish a very good remedy.

Mr. HARLAN. Was it brought in by the Senator?

Mr. SCHURZ. Is it necessary it should be brought in by me? [Laughter.]

Mr. HARLAN. Perhaps not, because the Senator has not been able thus far, although a member of that committee, to propose a remedy. He is happy in denunciation; but it is the remedy which he proposes that I desire to hear.

Mr. SCHURZ. Does not the Senator know that the committee did propose a remedy last year in their report?

Mr. HARLAN. What was it?

Mr. SCHURZ. Read the report; you can find it there. I do not want to be led here into a discussion of the regulations of the custom-house of New York; but I insist that, as has been shown time and again, there is a great abuse, a system of robbery conducted in the most scandalous manner by gentlemen who have been there a year after their scandalous practices have been exposed in the open light of day; and the question is this: whether the executive department of the Government had a right to interfere with it, and is therefore in any way responsible for it or not? That is the question.

Mr. HARLAN. The Senator is evading the whole question. There is no question as to the right of the President of the United States to propose a new incumbent. He can do that any day, and with the concurrence of the Senate substitute one man for another. If it is merely the character of the incumbent with which the Senator finds fault, the remedy is easy; but I have understood him all along to denounce the general-order seystem as something within the range of correction by parliamentary bodies, by the Legislature of the United States, by the concurrent action of the Senate and House of Representatives. Now I want him to propose his remedy. I want to know what it is.

Mr. SCHURZ. Now, sir, let me ask the Senator from Iowa, if I were entirely ignorant of all these things, if I had no remedy to propose, if I had never thought of it, would that be a justification to the executive department of this Government for permitting scandalous abuses to go on in the custom-house at New York?

Mr. HARLAN. Oh no, Mr. President, nor do I believe that he ever has. This is a question of fact about which there may be difference of opinion. The Senator says they are robbers. I do not believe they are robbers. We have no evidence before the Senate that they are robbers. Surely if the House of Representatives had that evidence before them, if the Executive failed to perform his duty, the names of those men would be presented here as criminals at your bar, and we should be called on in our judicial capacity to try the very question that the Senator raises.

Mr. SCHURZ. The Senator from Iowa does not seem to understand that these officials are by no means officers of the United States Government whose nominations have to pass through this body. Not one of them. They are simply designated as the keepers of warehouses

Mr. HARLAN. But they are being kept in by men who are officers of the United States.

Mr. SCHURZ. Precisely.

Mr. HARLAN. The Senator cannot evade the question in that way.

Mr. SCHURZ. Ah, sir; and that is the question which by no means I want to evade. That is just the point I have been always insisting upon.

Mr. HARLAN. If an officer of this Government purposely keeps in subordinates who are corrupt, known to be corrupt, can he himself be an honest man?

Mr. SCHURZ. Ah! I do not know whether the Senator from Iowa is aware of what he is saying. He is knocking the whole argument of the Senator from New Jersey into pi. There is nothing left of it. [Laughter.]

Mr. HARLAN. Doubtless the honorable Senator from Missouri is very happy.

Mr. SCHURZ. The Senator from New Jersey argued yesterday that those high in power were not to be held responsible for the remaining of bad persons in such places, while the Senator from Iowa tells me (and I am indeed ready to take him at his word) that they are responsible.

Mr. HARLAN. The Senator shall not — probably he will be courteous — misrepresent me.

Mr. SCHURZ. Certainly not.

Mr. HARLAN. I did not say that the chief custom-house officer at New York is an officer of the United States and these appointees are subordinates of his. If I understood the honorable Senator from New Jersey, he did not raise the question of the power of the collector of New York over his subordinates, but he raised the question of the power of the President of the United States over this subject under the existing law. It is a question whether Congress has not put this power exclusively in the hands of the collector; but he has not suggested the question that the collector is not responsible under the law for the conduct of his appointees.

Mr. SCHURZ. Mr. President ---

Mr. SHERMAN. I do not wish to interfere in this debate at all, but I see that both Senators appear to be somewhat at a loss about the law. I think, perhaps, I might as well now correct them and state the precise facts. There is no doubt about the power of the Secretary of the Treasury over the general warehouse system at the ports of entry under an old act, which I will now read:

“All stores hereafter rented by the collector, naval officers, or surveyor, shall be on public account, and paid for the collector as such, and shall be appropriated exclusively to the use of receiving foreign merchandise, subject, as to the rates of storage, to regulation by the Secretary of the Treasury.”

There is no doubt that this law covers the general power over the warehouse system; but the system of general-order warehouses has grown up under the changes in our commercial marine, caused by the arrival of steamers that must within forty-eight hours unload, and those goods are under the custody of the collector of the port, and he is responsible for their custody.

Now let me go a little further: when the abuses were disclosed by the investigating committee a year ago, the complaints of many merchants came to the proper committee of this body, and many persons directed their attention to the correction of what were called the abuses of the general-order system; that is, improper charges made for the custody of goods that came in without any general direction as to the place where they were to be stored. Various projects were proposed at different times, and finally they were embodied in a bill introduced by the Senator from New York, not now in his seat, [Mr. Fenton,] at the beginning of the last session of Congress, on the 18th of March, 1871. This bill, made mainly by the efforts of persons in business in New York, was introduced into this body and referred to the Committee on Finance. It was there examined in November and December last. It was early reported back here with amendments, and while all this long debate has been going on, and while two committees of investigation have been, one organized and another proposed, up to this hour we have never had an opportunity to test the sense of the Senate upon the merits of the bill. Now, the remedy proposed is contained in this section of the bill:

Sec. 13. That the Secretary of the Treasury shall, from time to time, make such regulations as he may deem necessary for the conduct and management of the bonded warehouses, general order stores, and other depositories of the imported merchandise throughout the United States; all regulations or orders issued by collectors of customs in regard thereto shall be subject to revision, alteration, or revocation by him; and no warehouse shall be bonded and no general-order store established without his authority and approval.

In other words, it transfers the whole power over all these warehouses to the Secretary of the Treasury, the collector of the port of New York now claiming an absolute power to control these warehouses; and the President of the United States can exercise no power over the collector in the exercise of his legal functions except the power of removal. I believe that will be conceded on all hands. I doubt very much whether the law does give to the custom-house officer in New York the power he claims; he has always claimed that power, and one section of this bill transfers the power from him to the Secretary of the Treasury, who will be responsible.

Mr. SCHURZ. I am very much obliged to the Senator from Ohio for his explanation. I would ask only this question of him, if I may have his attention for a moment. It appears from the testimony given by Mr. Lydecker that the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury is required when persons are designated to be put in charge of the warehouses. Is that so?

Mr. SHERMAN. I have already read this law as to the general warehouses, but these are not the general-order stores. That general-order business, though not to its present volume, has existed I suppose forty years to some extent; when goods are not claimed within a certain time, when the consignee does not apply and pay the duties, they go into general-order store or general-order warehouses. That general-order system has grown into magnitude only within a few years on account of steam navigation.

Mr. SCHURZ. I understand. I asked the question merely for the purpose of ascertaining whether the opinion which was expressed in the investigation was correct, that Leet and Stocking were never legally designated because the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury was wanting. That, however, I consider for my argument an immaterial point.

Mr. SHERMAN. I do not think the Secretary has any power over them. They are simply agents of the collector for the custody of merchandise. They are so regarded.

Mr. SCHURZ. Now we are told that the general-order business is a mere administrative detail left to the collector of the port of New York; but when that general-order business transforms itself into a machinery by which the mercantile community of New York is plundered, must then that general order business and the persons in charge of it be still tolerated for a year in the positions which they hold after the whole scandal has been exposed? Will it he said that the Executive branch of this Government is entirely powerless in the premises? Can absolutely nothing be done?

It may be said that the collector has direct control over these parties. Suppose he has but who has control of the collector? Is there no way of reaching the collector? If it turns out that the collector maintains a system which is a flagrant and scandalous public abuse, will you tell me that the importance of Mr. Murphy's remaining there was so great that even the worst things could go on under him and yet the Government could not lay its hands upon him? You tell me that the President of the United States and the Secretary of the Treasury had absolutely no power over the subject? Why, sir, we know that Mr. Leet went to New York armed with a letter of recommendation written by the President, and that he obtained control over the general-order business in consequence of that letter of recommendation. Will you make an intelligent people believe that another letter written by the President of the United States to the collector would not be powerful enough to put Leet out of the way and to end the scandalous abuse carried on by him? Will you make the people believe that the President would go to Collector Murphy and pray him earnestly to put an end to those scandalous practices, and when Murphy refused to do it, the President of the United States would modestly bow his head in submission if he earnestly desired that the abuse be abolished? Sir, if the President of the United States, knowing of those scandalous practices, was opposed to them, and Tom Murphy for them, was not there a very simple way of correcting the mischief? Men have been dispossessed of their offices for causes far less connected with the interests of the public service. If Murphy wanted to maintain Leet and Stocking in their places and evil practices against the wish of the President, there was not the remotest reason why his official head should not have been as cheap as the official heads of other people.

But, sir, Murphy was not removed. A whole year after a committee of Congress had laid open the whole scandal before the eyes of the world, Leet and Stocking were still pocketing the money of the mercantile community, Murphy was still there, and finally he resigned of his own accord, and received a letter from the President assuring him that he enjoyed his utmost confidence and had the approval of his official conduct?

Mr. HARLAN. If it is no interruption to the Senator ---

Mr. SCHURZ. Certainly not.

Mr. HARLAN. I wish he would state specifically what these wrongs were and how he supposes they could be remedied. What were these wrongs of which he has now complained committed by Leet and Stocking?

Mr. SCHURZ. I have already told the Senator that as for the scandalous system which prevailed under Leet and Stocking the remedy was the simplest in the world; that was, to turn the rascals out and put honest men in their places.

Mr. HARLAN. What was it? What did they do that was so wrong?

Mr. SCHURZ. I do not think I shall have to lay before the Senator here all the testimony that was taken by the investigating committee in New York.

Mr. HARLAN. No; he may sum it up in a few words.

Mr. SCHURZ. It has been spread broadcast all over the country. Merchant after merchant was before the committee showing bills of overcharges which had extracted money from their pockets.

Mr. HARLAN. What does the honorable Senator mean by overcharges — more than they had a right to charge under the rules?

Mr. SCHURZ. Yes, sir; more than they had a right to charge.

Mr. HARLAN. Under the rules?

Mr. SCHURZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. HARLAN. Will the honorable, Senator tell how much they had a right to charge, and what the excesses were, so that we may know what the evil is?

Mr. SCHURZ. Does the Senator think he can make a point upon me here by forcing me to go back into the custom-house regulations and showing him point by point what the whole country knows?

Mr. HARLAN. Not at all. I supposed the Senator was speaking as a legislator, that he wanted not only to exhibit facts, but to inform the Senate, and as he has examined this subject thoroughly, was a member of the committee that has made the report, and is doubtless familiar with every point in the report, I supposed he would be able to state in a few words what the evil is, the personal evil of which he complains, and how he proposes to remedy that evil.

Mr. SCHURZ. Have I not told the Senator already that twice the matter has been investigated by committees of Congress, twice the fact has been elicited that overcharges were made by Leet and Stocking amounting to double the sum that was formerly charged for the same service?

Mr. HARLAN. “Formerly charged.” I want to know what they had a right to charge under the rules, and what were the rules. Did they violate any rules, or had they a right to charge what they pleased? Was it a matter of mere discretion with these storehouse-keepers, or were there rules that required them to charge only specific sums or maximum sums on parcels of goods? I desire to know what the exact information is which the Senator can impart on that point.

Mr. SCHURZ. Does the Senator from Iowa imagine that by such questions which I may answer or not, for I might answer them if I wanted, I shall permit myself to be drawn off from the course of my argument; or that he can obfuscate the minds of the American people concerning the abuses that have been going on?

Mr. HARLAN. No; nor have I any desire to do so. I have stated that this system has existed certainly for a long number of years, ever since I have occupied a seat on this floor, now seventeen years. The very complaints the honorable Senator is now making were made under the administration of Franklin Pierce; then under the administration of James Buchanan. Now, I want to know what new cause of complaint the Senator has found. He says this general-order system is all wrong. Now it is narrowed down to some wrongdoing on the part of two men called Leet and Stocking. I want to know what the wrongs perpetrated by them are that are incapable of correction. If two committees of the Houses of Congress have ascertained what they are, and the honorable Senator was a member of one of those committees, and is familiar with the facts, it certainly would not be embarrassing to him to state exactly what they are.

Mr. SCHURZ. No, sir, it is not, I will tell the Senator, and I tell him also that he cannot draw me off from the course of my argument.

Mr. HARLAN. Nor have I any desire to do so.

Mr. SCHURZ. The old charges were per package from seventy-five cents to $1 25, for which Leet and Stocking charge from $1 50 to $2 50; and if the Senator wants to inform himself on the subject, let him read the report of the committee, as I have done, and which he ought to have read before.

Mr. HARLAN. They might charge how much on a package under the law and under the rule? That is the question I want answered first. Then I want in the next place to know how much did they charge and collect.

Mr. SCHURZ. Well, sir, I think if the Senator from Iowa has demonstrated anything he has demonstrated that although having taken up so much of my time, he has not been able to deny that if the executive department of this Government wanted to put an end to this scandalous practice as carried on by these two men, there was no lack of power which prevented them from doing it.

Mr. HARLAN. Oh no, that was no part of my purpose; but if the Executive should fail to do it, the House of Representatives and Senate could do it.

Mr. SCHURZ. No, it was not a part of his purpose, but he has most admirably succeeded in making that demonstration. Now, sir, is there anybody who will say that if the President had been determined to abolish this thing, he could not have found means to do it?

Mr. HARLAN. Why, Mr. President, nobody calls that in question; but it is a question of fact I want information on. He says there were abuses there committed by Leet and Stocking that somebody has refused to correct, and that somebody is guilty of a great wrong; he thinks the President should have corrected it. I want to know, then, what the abuse was.

Mr. SCHURZ. I have already referred the Senator from Iowa to the reports of the committees. If he has not studied those reports, it is his fault and not mine, and he cannot call upon me here to read to him the evidence which is contained in them.

Mr. HARLAN. If the honorable Senator declines to give the information, of course I have not another word to say.

Mr. SCHURZ. Does the Senator from Iowa suppose I would now go into a general exposition of the details connected with the general-order business in New York?

Mr. HARLAN. Oh, no; but the honorable Senator, we all know, could state in a sentence what this evil is. He could tell us what the rules are, how much a storekeeper or warehouse-keeper had the right to charge on packages. Then he could tell from his memory, doubtless, how much they did charge; and in this way we could see what this abuse is, of which complaint has been made.

Mr. SCHURZ. Have I not already done so?

Mr. HARLAN. Not that I have heard.

Mr. SCHURZ. Not only has the Senator from Iowa not read the reports, but he has not even listened to what I have said.

Mr. HARLAN. I have tried to listen.

Mr. SCHURZ. I have said to him — always remarking to him that he would not succeed in drawing me off from the line of my argument — that for his own information, and out of pure kindness of heart, I would tell him that the old charges were regularly from seventy-five cents to $1 25 a package, and that charges have been made by Leet and Stocking from $1 50 to $2 50. I made that statement, and the Senator from Iowa goes on arguing that he wants to know what the damage is. If he wants to know beyond this, let him look into the reports.

Mr. HARLAN. But the honorable Senator does not tell us whether the charges which he named are regulated by rule. He says they charge in some cases two dollars a package. I want to know what rules there are that regulate those prices, or whether it is merely discretionary with Leet & Stocking.

Mr. SCHURZ. Nobody certainly will charge me with a want of courtesy if I am now determined to put an end to this. I have been interrupted by the Senator from Iowa now at least a score of times; I have given him information, yielded to his inquiries, and all that, I arguing upon one point and he arguing upon another.

Mr. HARLAN. I wish to beg the Senator's pardon if it has been inconvenient to him.

Mr. SCHURZ. It was not the least inconvenience as far as argument was concerned; but certainly it was taking up time for nothing, for if the Senator from Iowa really does think that the people of the United States do not know what the abuses of the New York general-order business are, I feel certain he will find himself grievously mistaken. If he does not know it himself, it is a state of innocence which is entirely inconceivable under circumstances such as the present. [Laughter.]

No, sir; I do not think there is a man in the United States who can be made to believe that if in the highest quarters of this Government there had been a determination to put an end to those abuses there was any lack of power which prevented that determination from being carried out; and if the excuse of a want of power is brought forward, permit me to use a vulgar expression, which I am loth to do, the subterfuge is altogether “too thin.”

Sir, I am very glad to see at last that some preparations are made to put an end to this scandal. In to-day's papers we read that a promise is made of reforms and I am indeed glad that the President of the United States, after a year of painful disappointment, has at last found a collector before whom he does not bow his head in vain when he asks for the abolition of abuses. [Laughter.]

Now, sir, I am through with this matter, and I need not say that I have occupied far more time than I intended. I expected to finish my remarks in half an hour, but other Senators have spoken as much as I, if not more.

I wish to say to the honorable Senator from Iowa that I did not mean any discourtesy to him when stopping his interruptions, but he ought to remember also that he was a member of the present investigating committee, and he ought to be better informed about the subjects which that committee inquired into.

Mr. HARLAN. I did not understand the honorable Senator as having intended any discourtesy. I only apologized for myself, as I supposed he thought I had taken up too much of his time.

Mr. SCHURZ. Mr. President, there was another remark made by the Senator from New Jersey to which I wish to say a few words in reply, especially as the same subject was alluded to before by the Senator from Indiana, and was used as one of the principal points in his argument. It was said — and in all probability in order to discredit me before the public opinion of the country — I had already declared that I would not vote for President Grant if renominated. I admitted at the time this was true; and now the Senator from New Jersey will certainly find no fault with me if I briefly restate the reasons which I gave when I made that public declaration. It was at Chicago, and in the speech I delivered there I spoke as follows. I had been discussing the action of the President in the St. Domingo case; the orders that went forth to our naval squadron there to interfere by force of arms, not only in case of a conflict between Hayti and St. Domingo, but also in case of a revolutionary uprising inside of the republic of St. Domingo against the Government of Baez. After having characterized that as a flagrant violation of the Constitution and a usurpation of the war power, I went on to say:

“The power to involve the country in war is a power of tremendous responsibility. It cannot be circumscribed too carefully, nor too conscientiously guarded against abuse. That this power was taken from the executive and confided to the legislative branch of the Government was one of the most important changes in the theories of constitutional government; it was essentially a republican provision, for which we gratefully remember the fathers of our Constitution. And here we stand before a naked usurpation of this power; a usurpation which only through a fortunate accident failed to be the cause of bloodshed. When our ships of war had sailed with the President's orders it was beyond his power to prevent a hostile collision. Any Haytien adventurer might have brought it about. It will not do to say that a little war with Hayti would have followed.

“There are no little wars” says the Duke of Wellington. A little war with Hayti! France sacrificed the flower of its revolutionary army — the army of the Rhine — in a war with Hayti. We would be victorious, but to what purpose? There stands the naked usurpation. No public danger provoked it; no public interest was served by it; no public voice called for it. The honor of the country would have been far better guarded without it. Not the shadow of valid justification excuses it. A naked act of usurpation performed merely to further a favorite scheme of the White House. And for this the Constitution was violated and the peace of the country endangered. And can such an act pass without the most-energetic opposition of Congress, and without emphatic public condemnations? It would almost seem so. And more than this, the same officer of the Government who was guilty of this act is held up by a great many as the man above all others to be reinvested with the power and honor of the national Executive. Do you know what that means? We are living in a country where precedent often, but too often, acquires the authority of law or constitutional rule. What is a mere fact to-day is apt to be looked upon as law to-morrow. If this act of usurpation passes without authoritative censure, thus passing as a precedent into our history, future Presidents and their sycophants will find therein sufficient proof that a President may arrogate to himself such a power, for President Grant had done so, and done so not only with impunity, but the American people, after he had done so had again rewarded him with the highest honors of the Republic.

“And what will that signify? That hence forward a most flagrant and willful breach of the Constitution by a President will be considered no reason why the same position of trust and Power should not be confided to him again. And when the Republican party will meet in national convention to select a candidate for the Presidency, the question will not merely be, do we prefer this man to any other that is mentioned? but the question will be, are we prepared to sanction executive usurpation with our approval, as a party? Are we prepared to ask the people to establish and sanction a precedent which strikes at the very foundation of republican government?

“May the party whose public services form so brilliant a part of the history of this Republic not end with such a descent! If such a question should ever be submitted to the people, it is to be hoped for the sake of constitutional liberty in this country and in the world, that the American nation will not hesitate to give an answer worthy of a free people. If the American people love their institutions they will never allow their Presidents to grow so great that they may wantonly trifle with the fundamental laws of the Republic.

“I have been severely censured and attacked for my attitude in this affair. That cannot touch me. But when a respectable Republican journal summons Mr. Sumner and myself to compose our personal differences with the President for the sake of the public interest, it deserves an answer. I will give it for myself individually. I cannot understand this view of public affairs. I know of no personal differences that could influence my political attitude. My personal relations with the President were never other than friendly. I complain of nothing. And were it otherwise I would certainly lose my self-respect if, on account of a personal resentment, I found myself capable of attacking the policy of the President. But if the President were my dearest and most intimate friend, this friendship would not restrain me from opposing a violation of the constitution. I do not view the great battles of politics as a comedy, wherein we see fit to play at pouting in one act and reconciliation in the next.

“To me it is a serious, sacred task. I know only right and duty. I should have been but too happy if I could have contributed to the end that this Administration should prove a blessing in every direction, and I hoped as much. I am fully conscious of my responsibility when I speak of a violation of the Constitution. I should never have spoken of it had I not deemed it my duty and were I not profoundly in earnest. It is my conviction, a conviction conscientiously formed, that this is a violation of the Constitution in its most important point, which the people cannot willingly suffer to pass without encouraging the undermining of their constitutional rights piece by piece, and without dropping into the dangerous habit of submission to the arbitrary freaks of personal government. I am not the man to change my convictions like a pair of gloves. Let them prove to me that I am in the wrong, and all differences are composed. But until then I shall not cease to battle against sanctioning this precedent, either through Congress or through the people, with all the energy of my nature. I shall not cease to strive that this precedent may be annulled by the proper authority as long as I have a voice to speak or a pen to write. I cannot. I shall not indorse a violation of the Constitution in its most vital part by supporting, under any circumstances, the candidacy for reëlection of the President who perpetrated it.”

These, sir, were the reasons which I then gave, and in the correctness of those reasons I believed then and I believe now, and I may say that when we discussed this subject in the Senate, I heard no argument which would in the least eaffect my convictions concerning this matter. Has the violation of the Constitution in this instance been successfully denied? That successful refutation is unknown to me and it is unknown to the country. It has been asserted that because I have made that declaration I was on the point of going over to the Democratic party. The Senator from New Jersey may set his soul at rest, and so may the Senator from Indiana. I shall not go over to the Democratic party.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Did I make any such statement?

Mr. SCHURZ. I understood the Senator from New Jersey to say so.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I did not say one word on that subject.

Mr. SCHURZ. Then I am glad to admit that I misunderstood the Senator. Certainly the remarks made by the Senator from Indiana left that inference so strongly that there was no escape from it. I reiterate that I shall not go over to the Democratic party. I never intended to do so, and I have no such intention now. But my resolution is firm not to vote for a candidate for the Presidency whose election would, as I am honestly convinced, be a danger and a misfortune for the country and for the cause of constitutional government; and I trust there will be an opportunity of voting for as good a Republican as there is on this floor while opposing General Grant. [Applause in the galleries.]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Anthony in the chair.) The Sergeant-at-Arms will arrest persons who have manifested disorder in the galleries, and if they cannot be arrested it will only be on account of the failure of those around them to identify them; and if they be not identified, the Chair will order the entire galleries to the right of the Chair to be cleared.

Mr. SCHURZ. And now, sir, I shall not imitate the example of others in going over the whole political field. I may express my opinions upon several subjects that have been discussed here upon another and more fitting occasion. The Senator from New Jersey yesterday closed his speech with a somewhat high-flown eulogy on the President, a eulogy which, let me say, we heard yesterday from his lips by no means for the first time. I find no fault with him, for I suppose his lips are merely running over with what his heart is so full of. He must pardon me if I cannot share in the gushing fervor of his worship. I believe when all the stock of panegyric is exhausted, that then the people of the United States are still entitled to ask some questions. I remember the time, and it was at the very commencement of my senatorial career, when we discussed here the repeal of the tenure-of-office law, and when Mr. Fessenden, whose name and memory we all revere, made a remark which went straight to my heart; for the edification of the Senate permit me to read it. He said:

“I think the day has gone by when with good taste we here in the Senate — men of some consequence, representing States of this Union, considering ourselves great men in our way — should think it necessary to be continually slabbering the President, and talking about his victories and his battles, and all that sort of thing. Sir, he has ceased to be a general, in the ordinary sense of the word; he is nothing now but President of the United States.”

And whatever you may say of William Pitt Fessenden, all of us who knew him will admit that he was a man. The Senator from New Jersey also alluded very touchingly to the men on the farms and in the workshops, how they would cast aside the report of these debates and say, “What of it? We know the great warrior who saved us at Vicksburg and Richmond, and in him our faith will remain fixed.” Sir, let me tell the Senator that the men on the farms and in the workshops are freemen, and have the intelligence and pride of freemen. They see no man so high above them that they would bow their heads to the dust. They are grateful for the capture of Vicksburg and for the victory of Richmond; but they know also that Vicksburg is no longer to be captured, and that no hostile army intrenched around Richmond is now to be beaten. They know that what the country now stands most in need of is free, honest, and pure government. If the Senator from New Jersey is ready to appeal to the people, so, sir, am I.