# U. S. Senate Speeches and Remarks of Carl Schurz/Sales of Arms to French Agents 4

This is an initial excerpt from the discussion on this topic from The Congressional Globe, 42nd Congress, 2nd Session (February 21, 1872), pp. 1155-1158.
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, the pending question being on the amendment submitted by Mr. Conkling.
Mr. MORTON addressed the Senate in remarks which will be published in the Appendix.
Mr. SCHURZ. The Senator, as to his argument upon the question at issue, is perfectly delightful in assertion when he says that the whole thing has been swept away so that not even a tatter is left upon it. Against his assertion I put mine that he has not even touched the arguments I made yesterday, and I am willing to let the two things go before the country just as they stand.
I rise now simply to reply to a remark that he made in his somewhat furious onslaught upon me yesterday evening. It seemed that he was somewhat startled or had lost his temper, for otherwise I cannot explain his statement that I was trying to build up a German Know-Nothing party. Was not that it?
Mr. MORTON. It looked very much like it.
Mr. SCHURZ. Now let us see; and I wish to say to the Senator that with regard to the political bearing of his remarks yesterday I do not intend to be drawn into a political discussion. I may take some opportunity or other to explain and state my relations with the Republican party as I understand them. I cannot permit the Senator to define my position by other people's speeches, for I myself have made enough to make clear what I think.
But as to the charge of German Know-Nothingism, I desire to refer to the close of that speech at Chicago which the Senator alluded to yesterday where I addressed a large assembly of Germans, and tried to impress my views upon them as to the political duties we have to perform. The Senate will therefore indulge me while I repeat a very few remarks I then uttered, in order to make them understand the way I speak to my German fellow-citizens when I do speak to them. The closing remarks of that speech, where I especially addressed them as American citizens, were as follows. Speaking of the great things which had been done on the other side of the water, I added:
“The great soul of Germany, which for ages has haunted the history of the world like a specter, has finally found again a body mighty like herself. The shining helmet-crest of Germania is visible again from all points of the globe, and a feeling, so long unknown to us, now again elates every German heart — the proud and joyous feeling of being a child of a great nation. It is a beautiful, elevating and just feeling; may it bear the noblest fruit, may it kindle in the heart of every German, not the straw fire of vain and puerile superciliousness, but the serious sentiment that it is his duty to render himself worthy of the great mother. And nowhere is this duty more imperative than here, where the German, as a citizen of a great commonwealth, in the full enjoyment of all the rights a freeman can possess, has the most unbounded opportunity to give testimony of his true worth. Nothing could be farther from me than the idea of a separate political organization of the Germans in this Republic. Here we are American citizens, neither more nor less; and German pride should inspire in us here only the noble ambition to be counted among the best of American citizens. We have no separate interests here; and we should have no separate aims. Our interests are no other than those of all, and our aims should be no other than those of the public welfare. And, indeed, we can point with just pride to the fact that in the hour of misfortune, as well as of success, our new fatherland has never demanded anything of its children which the German citizens did not, in the fullest measure, and even with their life blood, satisfy. And more than this: when the great events which in the Old World called our fathers and brothers under arms, also in this country kindled the inborn love for the old home to a rising flame, then even this powerful sympathy of blood never sought an expression here which was adverse to the laws of this Republic. Even then we never forgot for a single moment that we were American citizens, and what is the first duty of an American citizen. And what we have proved in the past that we will not falsify in the future. The American Republic may always count her German-born citizens among her truest, most law-abiding, and most self-sacrificing children. and our national origin will never be in the way of this fidelity.”
“But what more than anything else makes the Germans faithful citizens of this Republic is the circumstance that on this soil the old Germanic idea of liberty finds the very fullest realization; and to no foreign-born men is it easier than to us to shake off those hampering traditions of old and foreign surroundings, for every one of us has brought with him, even if only sleeping in the germ, that old Germanic idea.
“I said that the new, proud position of the German people should, above all things, kindle in us the consciousness of the duty of becoming worthy of our great mother. Let us show, then, that we, as intelligent, faithful, and energetic workmen, know how to cooperate in the perfection of a free and moral public life, and when I look at the movement which at this hour appears in all German circles in this Republic, and whose symptoms manifest themselves in the public voice, then I become more and more convinced that the masses of the German citizens are in spirit already in the ranks of those who honestly strive to know the truth, and to act according to their best convictions. The large majority of the Germans have always stood more aloof than other classes from so-called practical politics; that is, from the selfish use of advantages won by partisan success. There are, indeed, people among them, and unfortunately too many for the honor of the German name, who also understand this selfish policy, and know how to profit by it, but they are still a small dark spot upon a large sound body. It is nevertheless true that, on the whole, the Germans stand not as mercenaries, but as volunteers, in the best sense of the term, in our politics — volunteers who honestly desire the best, and who are not animated in political life by the motives of mean selfishness. A conscientious. independent spirit lives in them. Give it that active power which will make it fruitful.
“And now let me repent the sentiment I have expressed hundreds of times before my countrymen from the beginning of my political activity. I do not say to you: 'Follow me! believe blindly in my words!' but I do say to you: 'Follow nobody blindly — trust not, but think. In the conflict of opinions form your own convictions with conscientious care; but when you have formed them, then I demand of you, have also the courage, as freemen, to act according to them. Not that we always all think and act alike, but that we always all think and act honestly, will give us a salutary influence upon the destinies of this country. For if all men acted as they think, I should not fear for the future of this Republic. I am also far from telling you, break at once away from all political organizations if every trifle does not suit you; but I tell you stand firmly by the great principles, and never sacrifice them for mere party or personal advantage. Let us belong to those who seek the truth without prejudice, and speak the truth without fear; to those who, by their moral attitude, convince the most inveterate politician that they are to be had for nothing that is in conflict with their sense of right, and who are not afraid, at the decisive moment, by determined action, to prove their faith. That is the sort of independence which will purify the political atmosphere, and which can successfully encounter the most threatening dangers of our public life.”
If that is German Know-Nothingism, then I invite the Senator from Indiana to make the most of it.
Mr. MORTON. I was aware of that passage in the Senator's speech; I read it at the time, and I can only say that so far as he has complimented his own countrymen, I indorse that compliment most cordially. I have long been accused in my own State of being somewhat partial to the Germans. I am aware that the Senator put in a disclaimer of anything like creating German Know-Nothingism in that speech. I do not know that he felt called upon to do it. I have not said that he expressed any purpose to establish German Know-Nothingism, but I have argued that that is the effect of what he has been doing. That is all I have to say.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Pomeroy in the chair.) The question is on the amendment of the Senator from New York, on which the yeas and nays have been ordered.
Mr. CONKLING. I ask to have the amendment reported
The Chief Clerk read the amendment, which was after the word “parties,” in the sixth line of the resolution, to insert the following words:
And that said committee also inquire and report whether any member of the Senate, or any other American citizen, is or has been in communication or collusion with the Government or authorities of France, or with any emissary or spy thereof, in reference to the said matter.
Mr. CONKLING. The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Schurz] called attention to the employment of the word “spy.” I had yesterday in my hands and loaned to the Senator a copy of the amendment on which I had made a note in pencil. The Senator has it not in hand, and I have not the amendment before me. I have no objection at all to omitting the word “spy” if the Senator thinks that word imports offense to anybody. It is the substance, and not the form, which I want to get at.
Mr. SUMNER. Before the Senate acts on the omission proposed by the Senator from New York ---
Mr. CONKLING. I do not propose any omission, Mr. President. I merely express my willingness to give my assent to it if anybody wishes it.
Mr. SUMNER. On the assent which the Senator from New York vouchsafes to an amendment, I wish to call the attention of the Senate to the meaning of that amendment. It implies that certain Senators have had dealings with a French spy or emissary. The language is:
And that said committee also inquire and report whether any member of the Senate, or any other American citizen, is or has been in communication or collusion with the Government or authorities of France, or with any emissary or spy thereof, in reference to the said matter.
Now, I wish the Senate to see the legal precision of this amendment. “Any emissary or spy thereof.” I do not wish to invite the Senate to any very learned inquiry, but I hold in my hand a work of authority, Vattel on the Law of Nations, and with your permission, sir, I will read you his definition of “spy:”
“The employment of spies is a kind of clandestine practice or deceit in war.”
Mark that, Mr. President, not in peace.
“These find means to insinuate themselves among the enemy.”
Mark that; “among the enemy” —
“in order to discover the state of his affairs, to pry into his designs, and then give intelligence to their employer. Spies are generally condemned to capital punishment, and with great justice, since we have scarcely any other means of guarding against the mischief they may do us. For this reason, a man of honor, who is unwilling to expose himself to an ignominious death from the hands of a common executioner, ever declines serving as a spy; and, moreover, he looks upon the office as unworthy of him, because it cannot be performed without some degree of treachery.”
That is pretty strong, sir. Spies are generally condemned to capital punishment. So, sir, if we have one here, if there is really a French spy, the halter must follow. That is the law. I might go further. The authorities are complete. Here is our own, Halleck on International Law:
“The employment of spies is considered a kind of clandestine practice and deceit in war, allowable by its rules.”
Are we in war, sir? War with France? Have we a French spy among us?
There is another term employed; it is “emissary.” The Senate need only to go to a simple dictionary; I will not go to a law-book or any work on the law of nations, but I take what I think is the best authority, Worcester's large dictionary, and I turn to “emissary.” This is what he says:
“'Emissary' and 'spy' are terms applied to persons sent out by a Government to an enemy's country for hostile purposes. An emissary, whose office is the less dishonorable of the two, acts openly, but endeavors to influence the councils of the enemy, to sow seeds of dissension. A spy is concealed and endeavors to get information that may be useful to his employers.”
Why, sir, that is in a common dictionary; and yet the Senate is asked to adopt a proposition which shall practically assert that we are in hostile relations with France, that France at this moment has here in Washington a spy, which can be only in time of war. Such an assertion not only implies ignorance of language, but it is an insult to a friendly Power.
Mr. CONKLING. Mr. President, it is always a pleasure to agree with the Senator from Massachusetts when he is right, and he is often right. Therefore, I will try to agree even in the satisfaction he seems to feel in saying that the preparation of the amendment proves ignorance even of language. Certainly I make no pretension to equal the Senator in knowledge of language, nor the value he sets on phrases and words. I seek things, not words; and I have before said to the Senate that I drew the amendment in haste without the statute before me, without having recently referred to the statute, and without aiming at form. Had the act of Congress been before me I should have borrowed its terms, as I will now borrow them. I do not ask to modify my amendment, because the yeas and and nays having been ordered it would be in the power of any Senator to object, but I move to strike from the amendment the words “emissary or spy,” and insert in lieu the words employed in the statute, “agent or officer.”
I will say to the Senator, however, that I make this motion and accept his criticism, though I think full answer might be made to the reasons on which he has chosen to plant himself. I will not wage discussion with him, because I repeat I am after things not words, and I propose to investigate when proper occasion arises any facts, wherever those facts may lead, and in so doing to hew to the line, no matter where the chips fly.
And, Mr. President, just here I cannot refrain from commenting upon the somewhat airy exhibition made by the Senator from Missouri yesterday. I believe it is parliamentary to speak of that exhibition as being “airy.” The honorable Senator said that I could not frighten him; that he could not be intimidated. He reminded us that he had stood on the perilous edge of battle.
Mr. SCHURZ. No.
Mr. CONKLING. He did not use those words; but he said he had trod the field in the presence of a thousand men and his heart had not quailed.
Mr. SCHURZ. I did not say any such thing.
Mr. CONKLING. Did not the Senator say that?
Mr. SCHURZ. No, sir.
Mr. CONKLING. Who shall report him correctly? And how many men did he say he had fronted?
Mr. SCHURZ. Shall I tell the Senator what I said ?
The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from New York yield to the Senator from Missouri?
Mr. CONKLING. Yes, sir.
Mr. SCHURZ. I said that on the paths of duty which I had followed I had met more dangerous men than the Senator from New York, and if there were a thousand of them my heart would not quail.
Mr. CONKLING. Not so sotto voce. What was that last remark?
Mr. SCHURZ. And that if there were a thousand of them my heart would not quail.
Mr. CONKLING. Mr. President, the Senator did not say only that. I appeal from the Senator to the Senate. The senator made a flourish which raised a titter in the galleries; it could not have escaped attention, and I appeal from the Senator to Senators who hear me when I say that he varies his statement now. I do not take issue with him upon the phrase “paths of duty;” he may have used those words. But he said that he had stood in the presence of men more dangerous than
the Senator he referred to, and he had stood in the presence of either a hundred or a thousand of them, and his heart had not quailed. That was the statement with which he backed his vaunting that I could not intimidate him, or deter him from doing his duty by my amendment. Who ever thought of scaring him, or of putting him in fear? Did he believe the amendment was meant to terrify him, whether he be timid or bold?
Mr. SCHURZ. Mr. President, I repeat to the Senator now that my exact language was this, and I remember it very distinctly: that on the paths of duty I had walked I had met men more dangerous than the Senator, and if there were a thousand of them my heart would not quail. That is what I said. [Applause in the gallery.]
The VICE PRESIDENT. Order!
Mr. CONKLING. Mr. President, personal courage, if it be true, does not blurt or swagger; personal courage is not froth; and men eminent for the intrepidity and boldness of their character do not strut or perch themselves upon an eminence and boast of it, especially where it is not challenged. I have no wish, far from it, to put my courage or my dangerous capacities in hopeless competition with those of the distinguished Senator. I thought that far, very far fetched, and cheap indeed was the attempt to convince the galleries that the amendment was intended to intimidate the Senator or to shock or overcome his personal courage. Equally far-fetched was the attempt to insinuate that any want of personal courtesy attended the offer of this amendment. Equally preposterous was the assumption of the Senator that he stood too high to make it proper that investigation should ascend to him.
I am not sure that it would be becoming in any member of this body to assume that an investigation would be improper or audacious because it might reach him. If there be any member who might properly put on such airs, it is not that member who came here with the language of insinuation — I will not say of cowardly insinuation, because it would not be parliamentary — but who came here to insinuate that the President of the United States, the first officer of the Republic, had drabbled the robes of his great office in the nasty mire of personal corruption. That honorable Senator ventured such an imputation. It lies before me in the Democratic print, the pamphlet which has gone to instruct the Democracy of New Hampshire. Mr. President, a Senator who with no reason to believe it to be true, and with every reason to know it to be false, ventured to cast such an imputation upon the first officer of the Government and to demand his investigation, should not quiver or “quail” if the hand of investigation points to members of the Senate or to him. He must not show the agitation or temper exhibited by the Senator yesterday, unless he wishes men to say that it is the hit and wounded bird that flutters. [Manifestations of applause in the galleries.] If he is conscious of no wrong, he need not assume that investigation means him, and he need not exclaim that he “scorns” the amendment.
The honorable Senator purged himself in advance swiftly. He sought to make the arrow glance which he thinks is aimed at him. Mr. President, if any member of this body, in the hot chase of personal vengeance, in the devious progress of party or political secession or infidelity, in the ambition of party ruin of which he longs to be the chief architect, has violated the law or overleaped propriety or patriotism, or if such seems to be the case, I trust that as long as I am honored with a seat here I shall have the independence and integrity to move investigation and to vote for it. No striking of attitudes, no threats of offense will stand in the way. In all such cases I shall, I trust, act from some sense of duty and responsibility, and not from the mean and
groveling motives which seem to rise in some minds as the only springs of human action, and which I fling back to those who suggest them.
I did not intend, Mr. President, at this time to be led even into this brief episode. The honorable Senator from Missouri chose yesterday to make remarks touching other topics, to make insinuations, offensive and unfounded; and to those insinuations, if I have a thing to say, I will fit it with a better time. There may come a time when without blocking the business of the Senate it may be convenient to answer the remarks which that honorable Senator chose to make. Seeking no controversy with him, and wishing none, but declining none which he will force upon me, I will take some occasion, perhaps, to say something in answer to the Senator; and when the time comes I will do it with as much composure and firmness as I may be able to command, after the somewhat frisky and portentous proclamation he has made, not only of his courage, of his lack of all fear, but of his prowess in those dangerous qualities, as I think he called them, of which it would be prudent to take notice.
Now, I move, if my motion has not been formally entered, to strike from the last line of the amendment the words “emissary or spy” and to insert in lieu “agent or officer,” these being the words in the law before me.
Mr. SCHURZ. Mr. President, the Senator from New York takes great pains in assuring the Senate that he did not intend to make any personal attacks to-day; that he did not wish a personal controversy with me. It seems to me that those who listened to his speech day before yesterday and to his remarks now must have come to the conclusion that his acts correspond very little with his intentions. If I did and said anything yesterday that looked like strutting, then I most sincerely beg the Senate's pardon: for I certainly do not want to encroach upon the exclusive privileges of my honorable and distinguished associate from New York. [Laughter and applause in the galleries.] If I did and said anything that looked like boasting let me assure you, sir, that it was not the remark that “even if I met a thousand of his kind I would not quail,” for I would not consider that a striking demonstration of courage. [Laughter.]
But the Senator leveled one shaft at me which, to judge from the magnificence with which be propelled it, and from the fearful pomposity of his looks, he deemed absolutely crushing. It was when he said that one day I had come upon the floor of the Senate and had dared to throw out an insinuation against the Chief of this Republic, as to his being connected with some very questionable practices in New York. Sir, let me say to the Senator and to the country that by the statements I then made I am willing to stand to-day, whether the Senator from New York calls them an insinuation or not; and for his especial benefit I will repeat them, and I dare say that recent developments have confirmed the truth of what I stated. What did I say? I said that there was a system of robbery going on at New York known as the general-order business. I said that the general-order business had been described as such in the report of the committee of this body which had by its orders investigated it. I said that the merchants of New York had protested against it. I said that a commission sent by the Secretary of the Treasury had investigated it, and reported against it. And now I declare that the system, in its naked deformity, and in a far more glaring light than any yet shed upon it, has been exhibited to the eyes of the country once more by the investigation that has just taken place.
The conclusion I drew was this: that when the public opinion of the mercantile community denounced so scandalous an abuse; when the Secretary of the Treasury had it investigated and reported against it; when a committee of the Senate had done the same and it was still maintained, then there must be a power stronger than public opinion, stronger than the committees of the Senate, stronger than the Secretary of the Treasury to sustain it; and what I said then I repeat to-day. Will the Senator gainsay it? That is the language I then used; that, is the insinuation I then threw out. If the Senator from New York can say that the logic is bad, let him speak. If the Senator from New York can say that my statement of facts is faulty, let him speak. If he can say that my conclusions are unjustifiable, let him speak. But if he cannot do that, by what right does he stand up here imputing to me a desire of throwing an imputation against the Chief of the Republic, when I only spoke of facts open to the gaze of the whole world, and drew conclusions from which no sane man can escape?
Let me tell him that the people have their eyes open; they see what is going on, and they have minds clear enough to form their own judgment. Let me tell him that the people appreciate the efforts of those who have had the boldness to face those in power, and that those who think that by magnificent eloquence they can cover up the abuses which are pervading the public service, however clear they may lay before the eyes of the world, will find themselves grievously disappointed. Thus much as to the insinuations thrown by myself against the Chief of this Republic.
Now, sir, as far as my personal relations to the Senator from New York, or to any Senator are concerned, let me say that there is probably not a member of this body who in all his utterances has preserved a more uniform courtesy and kindness to every Senator on this floor than I; that when I was provoked into remarks which may have been considered personal, certainly the provocation was so great that a man of spirit could not resist it.
Mr. CONKLING.- Mr. President, do not let us “darken counsel with words.” There is an issue between the Senator from Missouri and myself. He understands it; so do I; let the Senate understand it also. Among the many kinds of genius possessed by the Senator is genius as a reporter, and that genius rises highest when he reports himself. He has taken occasion to correct, as they stand recorded, and I presume revised by himself, in the Globe, repeated statements made during the debate. Indeed it is impossible to remember and difficult to read language used by the Senator in this debate which he does not rise to alter or to diminish or increase. A long and diluted repetition has been made by the Senator of the statement formerly made by him to which I referred. Here is the statement; I mean to read it and expose its meaning, and then to characterize it as far as the rules of this body give me a right to do so. I read the Senator's language:
“It was intimated by some of the witnesses that Mr. Leet, who pockets the enormous profits arising from that business, has some connection with the White House; but General Porter was examined, Mr. Leet himself was examined, and they both testified that it was not so, and counting the number of the witnesses we have no right to form a different conclusion. But the fact remains that this scandalous system of robbery is sustained, is sustained against the voice of the merchants of New York, is sustained against the judgment and the voice of the Secretary of the Treasury himself. I ask you, how is it sustained? Where and what is the mysterious power that sustains it? The conclusion is inevitable that it is a power stronger than decent respect for public opinion, nay, a power stronger than the Secretary of the Treasury himself.”
What does that mean? First of all, “counting the number of the witnesses.” Heard you ever of that mode of weighing testimony? Witnesses are weighed, and not counted; but, says the Senator, “counting the number of witnesses” we have no right to form a different conclusion. That is the reason, the only reason, the only barrier that stands between the Executive and conviction of official
guilt — “the number of witnesses” — a statement in itself untrue, as the record will show, because but two witnesses had insinuated any such thing, and they had both declared that they knew nothing on the subject, nothing to warrant them in making such a statement; but two witnesses had testified to the contrary.
Therefore the statement as to the number of witnesses is unfounded, doubly unfounded. There was no proof in a legal sense, no proof in a moral sense, not one scintilla of evidence to which any man would resort, unless he was blind with bigotry or mad with passion, to fasten an imputation upon anybody. And on the other side the witnesses, who beyond all others knew exactly the facts, utterly denied the imputation. But, says the Senator, “counting the number of the witnesses,” thereby meaning that that is the only escape, the only door open, the only loop-hole out of which the President could go; counting the number of witnesses, we have no right to say that the allegation was made out. Then he adds the sting, but the conclusion is inevitable that the robbery is “sustained by a power stronger than decent respect for public opinion, nay, a power stronger than the Secretary of the Treasury himself.” Whom did the Senator mean by that, I repeat? Who was meant by this valiant accuser, who, we must believe, could stand on a burning deck without a quiver?
Is that the language of courage? Is that a bold and manly allegation? No, sir, it is envenomed imputation smothered underneath cunning words, wrapped in the drapery of mysterious hint; it is a barbed arrow, selected as the most deadly arrow in the quiver of malice or of slander; it is a statement pointing in design right at the President of the United States, and pointing nowhere else; it is a declaration by a Senator in his place, with his oath upon him, with his responsibility about him, aspersing the President by indirection, and so that responsibility might be evaded, without evidence, without warrant, without reasonable cause, without truth; and it was uttered as part of a demand for investigation. If such language be tolerable at all, it is least becoming in him who, when it is proposed to enlarge the scope of an inquiry so that it may reach the Senate itself, mounts upon his privileges, assumes his dignity, and charges upon a fellow-member some personal impropriety, because, forsooth, the investigation proposed may embrace the Senator himself!
Mr. President, that Senator knows whether he has commenced or carried on communication or correspondence with an agent or officer of a foreign Government. He knows whether when the facts are proved, and they are laid down by the side of a statement made by him yesterday, and by the side of another statement heard recently in this Chamber — he knows whether when the truth and the statements lie side by side they will square with each other or not. If they do, nothing will be taken by this motion, nothing will be lost by the Senator, nothing will have entered this sanctuary to ruffle the composure or test the courage of any one.
We have now a saturnalia of licentious talk, we have a carnival where many seem to feel at liberty to pelt their country and their country- men directly, and by indirection too, to put afloat the most enormous and odious accusations; we are in the very heyday and meridian of investigation; there is a demand that houses shall be unroofed, and that we shall look in upon everybody's doings, and we should have an end of such senatorial dignity, of the coy and shrinking suggestion that Senators are too high, or borrowing another phrase of the Senator, that certain Senators are too well known to render it suitable or fit to investigate them.
I know, Mr. President, in our organistiation, of
no pinnacle upon which man can stand above the laws, the duties, and the rules resting on the poorest and the humblest in the land. I know of no “benefit of clergy,” of no “privilege of sanctuary,” which shields a Senator from responding to allegations touching him; and I know of no time in the history of the Republic when, so much as now, you might aim investigation anywhere without being invidious or out of fashion. I propose the amendment upon my own responsibility, wishing to assume it all, and if my act be the subject of criticism at all, that criticism is least appropriate coming from the Senator, who, in the language I have read, attempted to fasten, and who even now again, in defiance of fact and of right, seeks to fasten an imputation upon a high and blameless officer, upon the first officer of the country.
Mr. SCHURZ. Mr. President, I think the attempt would be vain, indeed, to equal the Senator from New York in magnificence of phrase or of gesture; but certainly he cannot mean to intimate here that I decline an investigation of the conduct of Senators. He cannot have forgotten that yesterday I declared most emphatically and repeatedly that I even invited that investigation. He certainly cannot insinuate that I shrink from it. But I will repeat what I said, that I shall vote for that investigation with all the scorn inspired by the motives which dictated it.
Sir, let me again turn to the thing that looks like argument in this controversy. A case has been dragged in by the Senator from New York from which I will not let him escape so easily. I asked him whether the facts I had stated in regard to the general-order business were not correct. He did not say they were not. He did not assert that it was not a most scandalous system of plunder. He did not assert that it had not been investigated by a committee of this body, and that the scandal had not been exposed in the glaring light of day. He did not assert that the Secretary of the Treasury had not investigated and reported against it. He did not assert that this very same scandal is not existing to this very day. He did not deny the correctness of my logical conclusion, that if public opinion was not strong enough to remove it, that if the Secretary of the Treasury, in spite of his adverse opinion, was not strong enough to abolish it, there must be some power stronger than public opinion and stronger than the Secretary of the Treasury to sustain it. Let him indulge in phrases ever so magnificent, let him walk up and down here with an air ever so gorgeous, let him say to me that what I stated was ever so base, yet the truth of it he cannot deny, and there I hold him. [Manifestations of applause in the galleries, which were checked by the Vice President.] And now, sir, here we stand before the country, one of us exposing himself to obloquy for a cause which he has proven to be just and according to established truth, and the other vociferates against him in the most magniloquent way, who has not yet shown that be possesses the courage in the face of “the powers that be” to draw an honest conclusion.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on the amendment to the amendment offered by the Senator from New York, to strike out the words “spy or emissary” and insert “agent or officer thereof.”
The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on the amendment as amended, on which the yeas and nays have been ordered.
The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted — yeas 49, nay 1; as follows:
YEAS — Messrs. Ames, Anthony, Bayard, Blair, Boreman, Caldwell, Cameron, Carpenter, Casserly, Chandler, Clayton, Cole, Conkling, Corbett, Edmunds, Ferry of Michigan, Flanagan, Frelinghuysen, Gilbert, Harlan, Hill, Hitchcock, Johnston, Kellogg, Kelly, Logan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Norwood, Nye, Osborn, Pomeroy, Pratt, Ramsey, Rice, Robertson, Sawyer, Schurz, Scott, Sherman, Spencer, Stevenson, Sumner, Trumbull, Vickers, West, Windom, and Wright — 49.
NAY — Mr. Sprague — 1.
ABSENT — Messrs. Alcorn, Brownlow, Buckingham, Cooper, Cragin, Davis of Kentucky, Davis of West Virginia, Fenton, Ferry of Connecticut, Goldthwaite, Hamilton of Maryland, Hamilton of Texas, Hamlin, Howe, Lewis, Patterson, Pool, Saulsbury, Stewart, Stockton, Thurman, Tipton, and Wilson — 23.
So the amendment was agreed to.