The Portland daily press., 1868-03-10
DAILY PRESS.
Tuesday Morning. March 10, 1853,
Can "A Caucus se,i.e Auy,biput
PORTLAND


prototype Of the modern caucus. BY what
rules those ancient Call1ers were governed, or
how far their edicts were recognized and
obeyed. are questions for the Massachusetts
Historical Society. 1t is of more immediate
Importance to the present generation to de-
termine how far the DEGREES of our modern
caucuses are binding. The matter appears
to be clear enough upon the surface. A eau
Gus is an assembly OF men who agree upon
some leading question OF public policy, and
who desire by consultation upon matters CT
expedency, usually relating to the selection
OF candidates, to agree upen some course of
united action. SO long as the questions de-
cided by the caucus are merely questions of
| expediency, all who take part in the delbera-
tions are clearly bound to accept the decis-
ion OF the majority frankly and fnliy Any
different course involves an assumption of
| superior wisdom which human nature can
not reasonably be expected to endure. Men
| cannot work together on such terms.
Members ef the party who do not attend the
| caucus tacitly consent to leave the arrange
ments to their associates who do, and are like
wise bound by the decision so far as it relates
to matters of expediency merely. Some plan
of operations must be agreed upon. and the
men who take interest enough to assist in
framing that plan, have right to count upon
the support of their friends who stay at home.
1t is only when the matters to be consider
ed involve questions of conscience, that any
difficulty arises. and in these cases chiefly be-
cause mems convictions are unlike. One man
holds that the reconstruction of the South
ern States upon basis OF liberty and justice
is the supreme issue. That man is Repub-
lican and may fairly and honestly go into a
caucus and act in harmony with all men who
| agree with him on this point. Another be-
| lieves the preservation OF the Maine law to
be OF infinitely more Importance than the re-
construction OF the Southern States. He is
Maine Law man, and might act harmoni-
ly with Temperance men in a Temperance
convention, but is he prepared to take part
| in Republican caucus? third believes
only native Americans should be elected to
Office. He is Knownothing, and obviously
| is not prepared to submit to the choice OF
purely Republican caucus, if that choice
should fall upon naturalized American.
Either of these men may also agree to the
Republican policy of reconstruction, but while
| they regard something else as gilmore impor-
tance than the success of that policy, it is
evident that they cannot treat the matters
which may come up in caucus as merely mat
ters of expediency. What then is their duly?
| This question has been discussed i'll the
United States Senate. When Congress as
sembed last July it was decided at caucus
| OF Republican Senators that the legislative
business of the session should be confined to
the removal of distractions to the execution
] of the reconstruction laws, that being the on
| ly business which had brought Congress to-
| gether in extra session. Several Senators op-
posed the resolution in caucus and afterward
upon the floor of the Senate. The following
extracts from the debate will not be unin-
structive and if they do not settle the matter
will at least selve to illustrate and emphasize
the different opinions which are held upon
this point:
Mr.. Wade tMr. Ferry in the chair)-Mr.
| President, have opposed this resolution, and
l have voted tor an amendment entirely in
compatible |ith H.. My general course in the
Senate, however, is in all cases where nothing
but matters OF expediency are involved, to
conform to the wishes OF majority of the
| party with which l usually act. But there
are some questions, in my judgment, about
which Senator has no right to conform his
| view to that OF the majority, and / take this
resolution to be one OF that class.
Mr.. Sumner-We are all under obligation
| here to discharge our duties as Senators. We
cannot go forward in advance and Tie our
hands, Should be tod that ,ne may not go
into a caucus and assist in the debate, and
then not appear again in this chamber except
| with the bands of the caucus upon bis
| hands?
Mr.. Fessenden-The Senator says, "You
may not go into caucus and assist in the de-
bate" That do no object to; but you may
not in my Judgment go into consultation
call it caucus or what you will-where the
implied obligation is that the quest.o under
consideration is 10 be settled by q majority,
and not only debate but vote, and then, find
ing yourself in minority, say,''I am not
bound"
Mr.. Sumner Vote or no vote, it makes no
difference.
Mr. Fessenden-That is what complain
of.
Mr. Sumner-Yes, that's what the Senator
complains Of i say it makes no difference
|
such question. 1t was our duty to stav in
that caucus and resist the offensive PROPOSE
ton to the last, and then aitei ard wash our
| hands OF it.
Mr.. Yates-Allow me to ask the Senator
whether he did not submit himself to the same
sort OF decision in the reconstruction meas
ures. Those matters were before caucus
and acted upon.
MIR. Sumner-The Senator asks about the
reconstruction measure. In the caucus on
reconstruction myself moved the proposition
that in the future constitutions OF the rebel
States the ballot should be required. A divi-
sion was had in that caucus. l allude to it
now because am interrogated openly in the
Senate. A division was had; there were two
standup votes, and my motion was carried by
a vote OF Is to Is. By 10 10 13 in that caucus
it was noted that in the pending bill we would
require suffrage for all in the iutme constitu-
| tiOns of the rebel States.
MIR. Edmunds-And what would you have
thought it the thirteen had repuGiated that
action?
Mr.. Sumner--It would have been a very
different thing TO repudiate proposition in
favor OF human liberty and to repudiate a
proposition that is against human liberty.
That is just the difference.
Mr.. Fessenden in his seat, in very low
tone of voice, apparently addressing Sena-
tor near hm) Then, it is allowable to lie in
one case, and hot in another.
Mr.. Sumner-Does the Senator apply that
language to any Senator on the foorP
Mr.. FessenGen-l say that is fair ilustra-
ten OF the remark made by the Senator il
there is any obligation whatever 1t is i'm.
pie statement. do not mean that the Sena-
tor means TO state what is untrue. VI course
he could not put that construction On it.
MI. Sumner-I do not know.
MIR. Fess enden-lhe Senator knows lust
, what meant by the remark; did not make
it Tor the reporters; but say it Is an il ustra-
tion OF his remark. l am not complaining ol
my honorable friend from Massachusetts,
He seems to think have imputed something
Not at all. l have asked gentlemen what
; their view was, because 1 want to know nele-
) after wnat course 1 am to take with reference
to these matters, and what is to bind me-
: Now, sir, think that after all, this discus
? sion may do us some good. 1t has taught me
enc thing. and that is that we do no: agree
all of us, upon what is tae honorable thing to
| do under sucl circumstances; and as i am
t bound by different rule, perhaps not a bet
ter one-l dare say not so good a one-it IS
! not tor me to judge; but an entirely different
], rule from other gentlemen, it is warning to
| me not to get into such difficulty again.
Sir, never, when boy approved Of the st,l
. OF shying copper and saying, Heads win
tails, YOU lose; but that seems to be prin
ciple adopted here; We Will 90 in; it we ale
q majority, right; we have 1t our own way
| II we are minority, conscience will not per.