The Portland daily press., 1867-09-11

"0uuo3idy iaJfAlilg, oeptemD IL, l0Oh
Mr. Fsssenaen's ssConservnti.m.o
Mr.. Sumner, after all his valuable service
to his age and country, is mortal and iallible
In replying to what he calls the personalit,
of a Senator who, we be ieve, has never dur
ing his long term Of public service been call
ed to order for an Infringement of the rules
OF decOfnm, MIR. Sumner proceeds in his news.
paper attack of last week, in a strain which
no presiding officer would for a moment per
NIT. We publish his remarks upon Senator
Fessenden in another column; we publish al
so an extract from a speech of Senator Fes.
sendens in which little over year ago he
considered this matter Of personality. We
believe it will be found that what Senator
Sumner chooses to regard as personality
comes strictly within the limits of legitimate
debate, as Mr.. Fessenden claims. 1t is a re.
mark OF Stuart Mills in his essay on Liberty
that the loser an argument is apt to CON-
plain OF the too great warmth of lis oppon-
ent. The inconsistent representations that
Mr. Fessenden is quairelsome person, of nc
great power or attainments, but has nevertie.
less exercised great influence in the Senate
are unworthy of Mr.. Summers logical powers
Both statements cannot be true and of the
two there is no doubt which corresponds te
the facts. Mr.. Fessenden wields an influence
in the Senate which no weak or quarrelsomt
man could hope to obtain.
Mr.. Sumner misunderstands the ground o.
Nlr. Fessenden's frequent opposition to him
In debate. He says Mr.. Fessenden has al
ways been opposed to his "ideas.' On the
contrary, men who have watched the course
OF both statesmen have always observed that
while Mr.. Fessenden generally agrees to the
ideas of the Senator from Massachusetts he
almost always rejects his methods,,. Mr.. Fes-
sender is practical legislator 8. 1 belong to
that class of men," he cnce said, "who think
that in a difficult crisis, where there is contu-
sion and it's troublesome TO ascertain what it
is best to do, true craftsmanship requires that
you should do no more than is absolutely de-
manded by the exigency Of the case.Dl This
golden rule of legislation MIR. Sumner does
not accept. lie is ready to legislate ut once
for posterity and all future ages; and hence 1t
happens that while agreeing in principles the
two Senators differ often and widely on meas
ures. MIR. Sumner has rendered great service
TO the country, but it has been as an orator
and not as a law-maker.
Mr.. Fessenden did not in 1862 controvert
the position that Congress had jurisdiction
over the rebel States To contvroert that
position would have been to defend the re-
bellion. Mr.. Sumner probably alludes to SEN
ator Fessenden's opposition to his resolutions
celebrating the doctrine of State suicide and
providing for reconstruction while as yet
there was nothing to reconstruct. Mr.. Fes-
sender objected to these resolutions as un-
timely and proftless distractions. On the
question of comforting the suffrage upon col
ored persons in the rebel States by an act of
Cong ess, there has been no serious difference
among the Republican Senators. 1t is the
notion OF regulating the suffrage in the loyat
States by act of Congress which Mr.. Sumner
holds almost alone, and which Senator Trum-
bull has recently controverted in the first
number of the Chicago Advance
When the time has come for action, Mr..
Fessenden's position has never been doubtful.
When Congress met for the first time after
the suppression of the rebellion, he was ap-
pointed chairman of the important commit
tee on reconstruction. Reconstruction had
then become practical ques ion, and Mr..
Sumner is compelled 10 confess that the re-
port OF that committee, drawn up by the
chairman, is sexcellent," and contains no
personalityp Allthe legislation OF Congress
on this subject has been based on Mr.. Fes-
senden's rel OF, yet Mr.. Sumner says he has
been "a drag on reconstruction" from the be-
ginning. When the Blaine amendment to
the constitution was under discussion Mr..
Fessenden said, Il would prefer a distinct
proposition that all provisions in the consti-
tuition or laws OF any State mixing any dis
tnctlon in civil or political rights, or privi-
leses or immunities whatever, should be held
imperative and void" 1t is well known TO
Senator FesSenden's friends that he favored a
proposition thus basing the work OF recon-
struction on great, clear principle, but was
overruled by men who call themselves Radi-
Gals, but who dared not follow this "Con-
servative" leader. But" he continued
II stand here as the organ of the COM
mlttee, approving what they have done, and
not disposed to urge my own peculiar views
against theirs, or to rely exclusively upon my
.H d Na u
own judgment SO far as to denounce what
honorable and true men, OF better judgment
than myself, have thought best to recon-
mend" This perfect courtesy is not what we
should expect from man, who as Mr.
Sumner tells us, always quarrels with every
body" but it appears and re-appears in near
ly every speech of Mr. Fessenden's.
When the President, in his first veto mes
sage, assumed that Congress had no right to
pass any bill affecting the interests of the res.
ell States, so long as they remained unrepre.
sented, it was Mr.. Fessenden who brought be-
fore the Senate the resolution declaring that
no Representative or Senator from the rebel
lous States should be admitted to seat, un-
til Congress should declare his State entitled
to representation. On the day after Mr..
Johnson's famous 22d Of February speech, 1t
was Mr.. Fessenden who, while the air was
full OF the excitement occasioned by that out.
rage, in language worthy OF Senator, assert
ed the rights and powers of the Senate. Yet
Mr.. Sumner says he "has always seemed to
have soft side for Andrew Johnson"
When the Military bill was passed last Feb
ruary, Mr.. Fessenden was satisfied with it,
He thought 1T enough to provide for the
peace and good order of those States, and to
let them sue for restoration to their former
privileges when they got ready. But once
more the selfstyled Radicals were not pre-
pared to go so far as this Conservative lead
er, and the Reconstruction bill through which
Mr. Stanbery afterwards drove his coach and
six, was passed in order to satisfy everybody
that Congress was anxious to reclaim the
Southern prodigals. t9rN 700
Concerning the impeachment of the Pres
ident, Mr.. Fessenden has held from the be-
ginning that it was unbecoming for him to ex-
press any opinion. He has differed with Mr..
Sumner, who, ,.although he expected to sit in
judgment in this case, has found it consistent
with his notions OF propriety to avow without
hesitation or reserve his conviction that the
President is bad man and should be remov-
ed from Office. There is room at least for a
doubt whether MIR. Fessenden's is not the
most becoming course under the eircumstan-
ces. But Mr.. Sumner thinks he has always
seemed to have soft side for Andrew John