# U. S. Senate Speeches and Remarks of Carl Schurz/Sales of Arms to French Agents 3

This day's Senate discussion on this topic provides reactions and context for Carl Schurz's formal speech of the same day. It is mostly a speech by Oliver P. Morton, a senator from Indiana. At several points, he quotes from campaign speeches of Francis Preston Blair, Jr., who, like Carl Schurz, is a senator from Missouri. The text is from The Congressional Globe, 42nd Congress, 2nd Session (February 20, 1872), pp. 1131-1134.
SALES OF ARMS TO FRENCH AGENTS
The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution submitted by Mr. Sumner on the 12th instant, to raise a select committee to inquire into the circumstances of certain sales of arms and ordnance stores.
Mr. FENTON. I rise, Mr. President, to ask the consent of the Senate that ladies who are unable to gain admission to the galleries may have the liberty to occupy the cloak-rooms during the session of the Senate to-day. We know that large numbers are here, attracted by the interesting address expected to-day.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from New York asks unanimous consent that the ladies who cannot obtain admission to the galleries may be allowed to occupy the cloak-rooms of the Senate. Is there objection? The Chair hears no objection, and that order will be made. The Sergeant-at-Arms will execute the order.
Mr. SCHURZ addressed the Senate in remarks which will be found in the Appendix.
Mr. MORTON. Mr. President, with the exception of the declamation to which we have listened in the conclusion of the speech, and some declamatory matter that appeared at intervals all through it, this speech in point of argument is but a repetition of the speech which the Senator made on last Thursday. If I remember correctly, he has cited but one new piece of evidence of a documentary character, and it was that which he purported to read from the evidence of Le Cesne before the court in France. The passage that the Senator purported to read from the evidence
of Le Cesne was to the effect that he had negotiated directly with the Government of the United States in the purchase of arms. I assume that the Senator translated correctly from the French paper.
Mr. SCHURZ. If the Senator will have the original, I will give him the French.
Mr. MORTON. But I will assume furthermore that the evidence introduced by the Senator himself in the letter to Remington shows that the statement of Le Cesne is an absolute falsehood, and the Senator's own statements on last Thursday in his former speech, which I have before me, also convict that statement as being absolute falsehood. I can dispose of that whole statement, and that is the only thing in the Senator's speech which was not brought here before, by a reference to the other documentary evidence that the Senator brought forward, and by his own statement completely exonerating the Secretary of War. If the Senator told the truth, or made correct statements, if his documentary evidence is to be relied on, then the statement of Le Cesne is absolutely false, and we know it is false, for it has never been pretended throughout this debate before by the Senator, or by the Senator from Massachusetts, that the French Government had negotiated directly with ours.
The Senator says that there has been an attempt made in the Senate to dismiss this inquiry by a crack of the party whip. I appeal to every Senator on this floor, I appeal to the Globe, I appeal to all who have been present at these debates, that this is not only untrue, but is directly the reverse of the truth. Nobody has proposed to resist this inquiry. I have intended from the first to vote for it. Nobody has proposed to put it off, and it would have been voted without a word of debate but for the Senators themselves who have made this debate. It was brought forward as a resolution with a long preamble reciting facts that we cannot vote for. I undertake to say there are not ten Senators on this floor who will vote for that preamble, because it recites the very things to be proven. It assumes in the beginning the very things to be investigated. The preamble is false. We know that much of it is false. But even if it is true, it has not been proven to be so. We could not vote for the preamble without voting the things to be true that are proposed to be investigated. It is an absurdity upon its face. But so far as the investigation is concerned, there has been no word of opposition offered to it here, and that part of the resolution would have been voted without debate but for the Senators themselves.
Now, who made this discussion? It was not made by myself or the Senator from New York or the senator from Iowa. We did not begin it. We simply replied. The Senators from Massachusetts and Missouri were not content to have this resolution go to a committee, but they must make their speeches in advance to poison the minds of the country; and why? Because they did not expect this investigation to result in anything, and the party capital was to be made in the beginning. The party capital was not in the investigation, but in the speeches.
The Senator says they forced investigation, alluding to that senatorial cabal, upon the New York custom-house. Is that true? Let me state in all frankness the truth about that whole controversy before the holidays. A resolution was offered here to appoint a joint committee of the two Houses, to consist of four members of the Senate and seven members of the House, to be appointed by the Presiding Officers of the two Houses. It was well understood that that committee would be appointed according to the recognized etiquette of the two Houses, as recognized by the Presiding Officers thereof, and under that etiquette a majority of the members of that committee in the Senate would have been the enemies of the Administration, three members in the House would have been the enemies of the
Administration, and a majority of the whole committee, organized in that way, would have been enemies of the Administration; and we were asked to appoint the committee in that way, with power to send for persons and papers, and to sit during vacation.
We were asked to create a smelling committee to be set upon the President from that time until the election, just as you would put a detective upon a suspected criminal. No sensible party would do that. We did not do it. We created a committee that was denounced as being a whitewashing committee; but it has already vindicated itself. Now I see Senators smiling; but I want to say that they spoke at great length on that question; their speeches have gone to the country as Democratic documents. The speech made here to-day is to be published as a Democratic campaign document. It is possible that two or three of those Senators may make speeches on the other side before the election comes on. They will not have as large a circulation though, and will not, perhaps, have as wide an influence.
The investigation of the New York custom-house was carried on under a resolution offered by the Senator from New York, [Mr. Conkling.] I voted for it, as did every friend of this Administration. I say with regard to every investigation that has been made it has been voted for, and not only voted for, but voted for willingly, and the only offense we have committed was this: that we were not willing to organize a committee the majority of which were the enemies of this Administration, and to give them the power to throw mud upon it from that time until the election, and because we would not do that, we have been calumniated all over the country. We did organize a fair and an honest committee. We will investigate everything that has been or can be asked for by any Senator upon this floor, I care not what side he may be on; and this inquiry would have been voted without fifteen minutes' delay if it had not been that the Senators on the other side were determined to debate it and to take the time of the Senate. We have now spent nearly ten days on this resolution, and who is to blame? Not the friends of the Administration. We have not been fighting it, but we have been simply repelling the statements that were made in advance, and that were designed to affect public opinion, and because we chose to say a word in defense of this Administration and to repel the infinite number of calumnies, we are called “henchmen.” I am independent, and I am independent enough to defend an honest Administration.
When a man loses his independence he then feels compelled to assault the Administration, to convert all good into evil, to believe nothing good of it. Who are the most independent? Here is an Administration that can be assaulted only upon personal grounds, by falsehood and calumny; and because the honest friends of the Republican party, the men who believe that the Republican party is valuable to this country and desire to preserve it, stand up from time to time to defend this Administration against these infamous assaults, we are called “party henchmen.” I care not for the Senator's epithets. And it is said that we are clinging to the skirts of power for patronage. Ah! So far as that Senator is concerned, let me say right here that up to the time he fell out with the Administration he had made quite as many recommendations for office as I had; he had obtained as many appointments as I had. I will not state the fact upon my own authority, but I have heard it said, and I have reason to believe it is true, that even his personal difficulty with this Administration arose out of the removal of his friends from office.
Mr. SCHURZ rose.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Indiana yield?
Mr. MORTON. Yes, sir.
Mr. SCHURZ. I authorize the Senator from Indiana to tell everybody who tells him so, on my own authority and on my own responsibility, that he lies.
Mr. MORTON. Ah, Mr. President!
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Indiana will pause. The Senator from Indiana made a remark just now as to “infamous assaults.” The Chair supposed then that he meant the remark to be general, not referring specifically to assaults here.
Mr. MORTON. I was referring to the general course pursued.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair so supposed.
Mr. MORTON. The Senator says the man who told me so lies. That may be; but I am not convinced by that strong statement, nor am I overwhelmed by the Senator's manner here. The Senator mistakes himself. If it is parliamentary, I may be allowed to say that he is slightly overgrown. When he stood up here awhile ago and called upon me from my seat to answer him categorically, yes or no, it may not be parliamentary to say so, but if it was, I should say that the manner was characterized by extreme insolence for which I have extreme contempt. I never treat Senators in that way. I never have.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair thinks the remark of the Senator from Indiana with a personal application is scarcely within the parliamentary rule.
Mr. MORTON. If it is not, I regret it. So much now in regard to the refusal to investigate; and I want to say, to follow a not very good example, that whenever anybody outside of the Chamber says that the friends of the Administration — I will change it — that Republican Senators on this floor are opposed to investigation, I authorize the Senator to say to that man that the statement is false, and that the falsehood can be established by the Globe and by every person who has heard these discussions from first to last. Sir, truth is valuable at all times, and it should be told always upon the floor of the Senate of the United States, and if the public mind cannot be fired against the Republican party and against this Administration except by repeating continually that we are opposed to investigation, in the face of all we say, in the face of all we do, in the face of the avowed purpose of this Administration, then the public mind should not be excited at all.
I am not confining myself simply to this resolution, Mr. President; I am referring to what has gone before, and I make this broad statement: that the stories sent out through this country that Republican Senators on this floor have been opposed to investigation of alleged corruptions are calumnies, and every man familiar with the proceedings of the Senate this session knows them to be such.
Now, Mr. President, what was the object of this debate, of those who made this debate? It was to draw these crowds here; it was to excite the whole country; it was to make capital against the Republican party. That was the object of it; and if we have sinned in any respect, it is simply because we have not sat still and allowed these speeches to go on from day to day without reply. I will not suffer myself to be put in the wrong. I put the responsibility where it belongs. I say this whole occasion is manufactured; it is gotten up by a long previous arrangement; that this whole charge is false from beginning to end; that the evidence which is brought here to support it is trifling. But whether false or not, we were willing to have it investigated. But they must bring the whole thing before the country at once because they thought that after this investigation was once begun it would amount to nothing; but if they could excite the country in advance in order to carry out political purposes, they would have gained their object!
Mr. President, the Senator says that the
Senator from New York [Mr. Conkling] and myself have offered a great insult to the German Government. The Senator is now swift to vindicate the German Government. He is the protector of its honor. He tells us that twenty years ago he was in the insurrectionary army of southern Germany. I do not know how he got there, and I do not know how he got out. I do not know much about the laurels achieved in that army; but I do not see that the character of the German Government has changed very much since that time; and if he was in arms then against that Government, I do not understand how he comes forward now particularly as its champion.
I said the other day that this whole movement was designed to excite the Germans of this Country against this Administration. Can anybody doubt the truth of that statement? Is not this simply a presidential move, and is not his speech an appeal to the prejudices and to the feelings of our German fellow-citizens? Mr. President, the purpose of the Senator is to separate the Germans in this country from the Americans, to get them together and hold them as a balance of power to control the elections. In 1854, when the Know-Nothing movement sprang up, I was opposed to it in principle; I had no connection with it whatever; and I am opposed to Know-Nothingism now. The attempt to array Americans against citizens of foreign birth is Know-Nothingism, and the attempt to array Germans against men of native birth is Know-Nothingism of the worst kind.
Mr. SCHURZ. Will the Senator yield to me for a moment?
Mr. MORTON. Certainly.
Mr. SCHURZ. Does not the Senator know that there is probably no man in this country who, whenever a suggestion was made practically for the formation of any political organization founded upon nationality, or for nationalities in this country, has more strenuously and actively opposed it than his humble servant?
Mr. MORTON. Well, Mr. President, of course the Senator makes his statement; I am not here to call in question what he says, except so far as I may question it by his course, his course in regard to this resolution, his course for the last eighteen months; and I tell the Senator that looking at his political history for the past eighteen months, it does make this impression upon my mind and upon the mind of the country, that he is making an effort to segregate the German vote from the Republican party, that he may wield it as a balance of power, and that in doing that he has dishonored his German fellow-citizens, and that it is the very worst form of Know-Nothingism.
The Senator has not said that he owned the Germans. He does not; he says to-day he does not; but I undertake to say that the impression has been constantly made for the last eighteen months that he could control the Germans. He has seemed to convey that idea by his own conduct. His friends have said that where he went the Germans would follow him. That has been the impression which has been attempted to be made, that whenever be took snuff all the Germans in this country would sneeze, and that they would follow him from the Republican into the Democratic party or wherever he chose to lead them. I am a better friend to the Germans to-day than he is if he intends to make that impression. I respect, them more highly than he does, because I believe that thing cannot be done.
I have had much to do with them since I have been in political life. As the Governor of Indiana and during the war I appointed many of them to military offices. They were upon my staff. I was constantly surrounded by them. I found them to be able, intelligent, and patriotic. I trusted them, and I was never betrayed by them. I have great respect
for and have great confidence in the Germans of this country, and I respect them too highly to believe that they can be made to follow any man simply because he is himself a German by birth. I tell that Senator, and I tell him in all kindness, that if he wants to revive American Know-Nothingism, with all its evils and with all its enormities, he can take no better course than by attempting to establish German Know-Nothingism. The attempt to separate them from men of American birth, to make them believe they have separate interests, that they ought to vote together, is naturally calculated to bring about and revive the old feeling of American Know-Nothingism. I execrated it on the one side and I execrate it on the other side.
I believe that when men come here and cast in their lot with us and become American citizens there should be no political distinctions, except such as are founded upon merit, and exist among all classes of men without regard to birth; and I will go further, and say what I said in 1860 — and I said it then in a public speech which is on record — that so far as I am concerned I would strike from the Constitution that provision which says that no man of foreign birth shall be President of the United States. I believe in allowing the people of the country to elect whomsoever they please, whether he was born in this country or abroad; and I believe in allowing them to elect him a second time, too, if they think proper. I am opposed to the one provision as much as I would be to putting into the Constitution the one-term principle, as proposed by the Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. President, I shall now offer some evidence to show what use has been made of the position of that Senator, and I must now refer, because this is all a part of the transaction; as the lawyers say, it is a part of the res gestœ. This very proceeding here to-day is a part of what is called the Missouri movement; it is a part of the Cincinnati convention movement; it is preparing the country for the Cincinnati convention, and I must be allowed to go back briefly in history, and see from what beginnings the Cincinnati convention came.
In 1870 there was a coalition formed in the State of Missouri upon the part of the Senator with the Democracy of that State. What was the result of that coalition? He carried with him many friends. The result of it was the election of a Democratic Governor of Missouri; Gratz Brown was not elected as a Democrat, but he is to-day as thorough a Democrat as there is in the State of Missouri; Democratic State officers, a Democratic Legislature in both branches, and the result is a Democratic Senator sitting on my left here from the State of Missouri, [Mr. Blair,] and the Senator from Missouri on my right [Mr. Schurz] brought the Senator from Missouri on my left into this Chamber. The Senator on my left is senatorially and officially the offspring of the Senator on my right. He is just as responsible for the presence of that Senator here as if he had constituted the entire Missouri Legislature and had elected him.
Mr. BLAIR. I would say to the Senator that I was elected here by the people of Missouri, and not by my colleague. I believe that my colleague did endeavor to have a fair election, and give the people of Missouri a right to vote; and if that is any offense to Republicans, be it so; probably it is to the Senator from Indiana.
Mr. MORTON. Mr. President, good pretensions are exceedingly cheap. The Senator from Missouri, however, on my left [Mr. Blair] was elected by a Democratic majority of each house of the Missouri Legislature; and, as we all know as well as we know that we are here to-day, that Democratic majority was brought about by the coalition made between the Senator from Missouri on my right
[Mr. Schurz] and the Democratic politicians of Missouri.
Mr. BLAIR. Mr. President ---
Mr. MORTON. I do not yield.
Mr. BLAIR. I hope ---
Mr. MORTON. If I yield all the time, my speech will be entirely broken up.
Mr. BLAIR. I simply want to make one single remark. The coalition was against disfranchisement.
Mr. MORTON. No, Mr. President, that is the pretense. The enfranchisement of the rebels of Missouri had been secured before that coalition was formed. That, I know, was the pretense, but an intimate acquaintance with the politics of Missouri has shown to me conclusively that the question of enfranchisement had been submitted to the people of Missouri to be voted on by the preceding Legislature, and the question as to who was elected Governor of Missouri could not affect it. It was made the pretense, but it had nothing whatever to do with the question of the coalition; and I wanted to say, Mr. President, that that coalition has never been dissolved; it exists in full force to-day; and if the Senator from Missouri on my left is not, authorized to speak for his colleague, here is as good a place to disavow it as can be found.
Mr. President, I have here a speech made by the Senator from Missouri on my left, [Mr. Blair,] at Meridian, Mississippi, made November of last year, and I will ask the Secretary to read from the New York World the passage which I have marked.
The Chief Clerk read as follows:
“The great leading mind of this people, one of the Senators from Missouri, my honored colleague, who is among the first statemen in America and in the Senate of the United States, has openly expressed his dissent to the harsh and cruel measures adopted to govern the South and keep it subject to the North. [Loud applause.] I believe as firmly as I believe anything that the entire mass of German voters at the North will, in the next election, if we give them a fair opportunity, unite themselves with the Democratic party and give us a sweeping and overwhelming triumph. [Applause.”]”
Mr. MORTON. There, Mr. President, we have it stated by the Senator from Missouri on my left, when talking to the Ku Klux down South ---
Mr. BLAIR. No, sir; I did not talk to the Ku Klux; I talked to the citizens down South.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Indiana yield?
Mr. MORTON. No, sir; I am very much inclined to think ---
Mr. BLAIR. I will not allow the Senator from Indiana ---
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Missouri cannot speak in the time of the Senator from Indiana unless the Senator from Indiana yields. The Senator from Missouri is aware of that rule which gives the possession of the floor to the Senator from Indiana unless he sees fit to yield. After the Senator from Indiana has concluded, the Senator from Missouri will be recognized; but when he declines to yield, the Chair cannot allow the Senator from Indiana to be interrupted.
Mr. MORTON. I want to say that I think he was talking to a Ku Klux audience for two reasons: first, because of the character of his speech, and next, because they were known to exist in that neighborhood; and I ask by what authority he pledged the people of the South that the five hundred thousand German voters of the North and of this country in the coming election would vote the Democratic ticket? If he did not get authority from his colleague, where did he get it?
Mr. BLAIR rose.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator yield?
Mr. BLAIR. Does the Senator ask me to answer that question?
Mr. SCHURZ. Will the Senator yield to me?
The VICE PRESIDENT. To which Senator does the Senator from Indiana yield?
Mr. MORTON. I yield to both.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Missouri farthest from the Chair [Mr. Blair] is first recognized.
Mr. BLAIR. The Senator from Indiana has asked me the question by what authority I undertook to make that statement. I will say to him that the speech which I made did not pledge any one. I simply expressed my opinion. As for what I said about my colleague, it was simply repeating a public declaration of his which was known to the whole country.
Mr. SCHURZ. I should be very sorry, indeed, to interrupt the close legal reasoning of the Senator from Indiana on the sale of arms, [laughter;] but I must say that the declaration made by my colleague in his speech — where was it delivered? In fact I must say I did not hear it; I hear it now for the first time.
Mr. EDMUNDS. It was at Meridian, Mississippi.
Mr. SCHURZ. At any rate, it was not authorized by me. The public declarations that I have made in my public speeches are before the country. I made a speech at Nashville, I made a speech at Louisville, and made one at Chicago. In those speeches I declared what I was going to do on several questions, explained my principles, and defined my position. And after having said this, I will sit down again and give my friend from Indiana an oportunity to continue his legal argument on the sale of arms. [Laughter.]
Mr. MORTON. It is possible that I may not be making a very close, legal, connected speech; but how could I make such a speech in reply to the Senator's — a speech made up of assertions and insinuations — I will not say calumnies, because that would be unparliamentary?
The Senator says be made a speech at Chicago, and so he did, and he said in that speech that if General Grant was nominated he would not support him, and he said it, too, with the most perfect understanding that General Grant, if he lived, would be the nominee of the next Republican convention. The Senator is too able not to understand that the great mass of the people of this country — I mean the Republicans — are for General Grant, and the man who cannot see that is blind. When the Senator said in advance, “If the Republican party should nominate General Grant, I cannot support him,” I ask if he was not authorizing his colleague on the left, his official offspring, to speak for him in Mississippi?
Mr. SCHURZ. May I interrupt the Senator for a moment?
Mr. MORTON. Yes, sir.
Mr. SCHURZ. Did the Senator say that I declared in my speech in Chicago that I took it for certain that I believed General Grant would be nominated?
Mr. MORTON. No, the Senator did not say that. Oh, no, he did not say that; but he said he would not vote for him if he was nominated.
Mr. SCHURZ. I did say that.
Mr. MORTON. He says he did say that. That is all I say he said, and I say that he said it with the full knowledge that in all human probability General Grant would be nominated, and he thereby put himself against the Republican party. Now, I am not responsible for the Senator saying that. Nobody regretted it more than I did when I read it, because nobody has a higher appreciation of the Senator's abilities than I have had; and when he put himself in that unfortunate position nobody regretted it more than I did; but it was his own work; it was not mine. All that I do is to recognize the fact. And when the Senator subsequently repeated that declaration at Nashville, I believe, and perhaps at Louisville also, showing that it was deliberately made, with a deliberate purpose, it proved to me that the coalition formed with the Democracy in Missouri in 1870 (that coalition of which my friend on my left was the offspring) had not yet been dissolved.
Now, Mr. President, I have another speech, for I am very much in love just now with what my friend from Missouri on the left [Mr. Blair] has said. I have another speech here that I will read from. I like the Senator's letters, as he knows, as I have had occasion to read them sometimes. [Laughter.] I have here a speech made by him in Montgomery, Alabama, on the 20th of October last, while the Senator was industriously engaged in the investigation in the South for the purpose of showing, no doubt, that there were no Ku Klux down there, or if there were any, that they were justified by the outrages of the carpet-baggers and the colored people! I will ask the secretary to read the passage that I have marked.
The Chief Clerk read as follows
“Now, my fellow-citizens, to my view the future does not look gloomy even under the losses we have suffered this summer and autumn. I have no single feeling of despondency. It is well understood that the Republican party contains in itself seeds of discontent, of bitterness, of rivalry, and disaffection; and it is natural in these preliminary elections that those who are against the nomination of General Grant should attempt to hold their position within their party in order that their influence may be used to defeat his nomination. I know very well that his nomination will not be defeated; at least that is my solemn conviction; that he is now dictator in the Republican party; that he aspires to be in the country at large.”
Mr. MORTON. In this speech the Senator says that it is natural that those who are trying to defeat the President's nomination should stay inside the Republican party for that purpose. He then goes on to say that he believes Grant will be renominated, just what everybody else believes; but he seems to intimate that the gentlemen whom he has in his mind are staying for the time being inside of the Republican party for a purpose. Now, if the Senator from Missouri wants to leave the Republican party, he has a right to do it, much as I and the rest of us would regret it — a legal, a moral, and a political right to do it. Nobody questions that. But when he does do it, he ought to do it openly and above board. He has no right to remain inside of the party for the purpose indicated by his colleague in that speech, that he might the better succeed in defeating the nomination or the election of the President of the United States.
Mr. SCHURZ. Will the Senator permit me?
Mr. MORTON. Certainly.
Mr. SCHURZ. I must interrupt that argument on the sale question once more.
Mr. MORTON. That is right.
Mr. SCHURZ. I would merely ask, as we may conclude from the Senator's last remark that those who are not in favor of the renomination of General Grant have no business in the Republican party, whether he really means what he says?
Mr. MORTON. No, sir, I never intimated that. I thank the Senator for the word. I never intimated that. Those who are opposed to the nomination of President Grant have a right to manifest it, and have a right to express it; but if they love the party and its principles more than they do personal hatreds or personal preferences, when once the nomination is made they will submit to it; but if they say in advance “If the Republican party shall nominate the man that everybody believes it will nominate, I will not support him,” it occurs to me that then the position of that man becomes somewhat uncertain in the Republican party.
But, as I said the other day, the Missouri movement or the Cincinnati movement is not aimed at General Grant alone, it is aimed at
the Republican party. The Cincinnati convention was called to nominate — the speech of Gratz Brown shows that it is a convention called to nominate a ticket, and to put it in the field. It was called to meet before the regular Republican convention, called for a purpose. It was called upon a platform essentially anti-Republican and essentially Democratic, proven by the subsequent adoption of the same platform by the Connecticut Democracy, as radical and as virulent a Democracy as there is in the United States, at least in the North.
But now I want the concluding passage of that speech read. Will the Secretary read a few lines further from where he stopped? I think I stopped him a little too soon.
The Chief Clerk read as follows:
“I know very well that his nomination will not be defeated; at least that is my solemn conviction; that he is now dictator in the Republican party, that he aspires to be in the country at large. I believe that he will dictate his own nomination; but then, my fellow-citizens, I know that some of the most conscientious, able, and courageous men who stand highest in the Radical party will leave the Republican party when Grant is nominated.”
Mr. MORTON. It will be shown by a subsequent passage that he was speaking for his colleague then. How many others he was speaking for I do not know; that remains to appear; but he assumes to speak for a number of leading Republicans who will leave the party when General Grant is nominated. Now, I ask the Secretary to read the concluding passage which I have marked.
The Chief Clerk read as follows
“They know the subtle manner in which tyranny will make its approach, and already recognizing it, the leading man, the ablest representative of our adopted citizens, is now proclaiming his hostility to Grant and his Administration; declaring in the face of the world that he has taken his departure and burned his ships. I do not believe that any will fail to recognize the description. I speak of my colleague in the Senate, Carl Schurz. He it was, my fellow-citizens, who led the entire German element of the State of Missouri to break down the disfranchising clause of our constitution, and arrayed his fellow-countrymen as one man against the Administration, and to despise the officers of Grant, despising the patronage and power, resolved to preserve that free love which America had given to him and to his countrymen. Now, my fellow-citizens, the Germans in Missouri, although Republicans almost to a man, have always voted against disfranchising those who were opposed to them during the war. They need no instruction on that point from anybody, and they resolutely maintained the doctrine that neither Congress nor the States could by a bill of attainder deprive them of the rights of suffrage. They maintained that position in the last contest through which we passed in Missouri. They held it good against the blandishments and threats of the Administration. They stand fairly and squarely to-day, solidly to the last man, against all disfranchisement and for universal amnesty. They are opposed to this Ku Klux legislation [loud applause] against the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus; and, in my judgment, if a man is presented as the candidate of the Democratic party, if the Democratic party will now, instead of adopting any 'new departures,' put forward a man, or accept one put forward by others, who is sound upon these principles, he will receive the support of the entire German vote in the United States, numbering, as I have been informed, from five hundred to eight hundred thousand men.”
Mr. MORTON. I simply desire to call attention to the fact that in this speech the Senator from Missouri again pledges the five hundred or eight hundred thousand German voters to this “new departure,” to this coalition with the Democracy, and says that his colleague has left the Administration, has burned his ships behind him, intimating, that he has separated himself irrevocably from the Republican party.
Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. With the consent of the Senator from Indiana, I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Unless there is something special in executive session, I move that the Senate adjourn.
The VICE PRESIDENT. That motion has priority.
The motion was agreed to; and (at four o'clock and fifteen minutes p. m.) the Senate adjourned.