New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-04-14

~. ,5:z7 ~ . - ~ =
II nfnosltya 1gse r. 80. :. .se TT
thst u. Sassnsr disln fsd ysnsf OF = & :
higher oime for > Presideet to influence the
pervert FREQ pressi Do you know Of any
thing in tho constitution, or the laws, or in
political usage that forbids President from
advising Representative upon any matter
which interests him or concerns the public
service7 How long has it been considered
necessary that Republican Senate should
fly in the face of Republican President in
order to escape the reproach Of executive
dictation from Republican preesl
No; whether the reason be good or bad,
stated the true one for transferring M.
Sumner, ON tie floor of the Senate: ne
could be Of no further use to the Presidentl
the Senate, or the country at the neaA VI
that committee, for he would NO longer hol9
personal intercourse with either the freSl-
dent OF the Secretary Of State.
No one insists that Mr.. Sumner snail roe
after any mans horses. drink any .man's
wine. or eat any mans dinner unless he
chooses to do so. Mr.. Sumner may un-
donbtedly choose his own personal assOci-
ates. But whether he can choose his own
position in the public service also, is another
question to be determined. 1t he does not
choose to associate with the man whom the
Republican party made President two years
ago, or with the man whom the President
and Senate made Secretary of State, that is
a matter of taste Tor which no one can call
him to account except the people Of Massa-
chusetts. But if he insists upon excluding
those gentlemen from his society, and still
to stand at the head of committee with
which those officers ought to have such in
innate communion-that concerns the pub
- ~0Nsv~ <r,u' nv1nff
to consider. The Senate considered 1t, aud
decided it in the negative.
You urge that their personal relations
were unimportant SO long as their official
relations were unimpaired. l answer. they
had no official relations to impair. When
the President or his secretary has 9any off,
cial communication to make tQQthe Senate
upon foreign affairs, it is laid before that
body, not BY its chairman of the Commit
tee on Foreign Relations, but by its presid
ing officer. II it is of sufficient Importance
it is printed, and each Senator has copy.
All such communications will be made to
Mr.. Sumner hereafter as much as hereto
fore. If he knows more Of cur foreign
affairs than any one else. as his friends
assert, the country will still have the benefit
of that knowledge, 90 long as Massachusetts
is pleased to continue him in the Senate.
So the country will lose nothing by his
transfer, except the advantage Of having
man of his great and varied attachments to
confer and advise with the President and
secretary from time to time, not officially,
but personally. That advantage he himself
denied to the country before the Senate
transferred him to another committee.
Mr.. !ilton, you are morailst: II the
Senate had, in wantOn disregard of its own
convictions of public duty, removed Mr..
Sumner from all committees whatever, to
punish an honest opinion, and to appease
an unreasonable executive, it would have
have committed q grave 0ffense. But
would that ofense have been graver than
those commit who falsely charge the Senate
with having struck down colleague wan
tonly and basely? Which is the worst
offender, he who steals, or he who falsely
charges an honest man with theft! Which
is the heavier offense, to take from the rich
man his purse, or to take from an honest
man his good name? Or which is the
greater ofense, to traduce an individual, or
to Willy Senate!
You are pleased to say that you expected
from me o "more chivalr0us part" am
atoms Of my friends. It may be that only
courage exposes itself to such laudation as
has been heaped upon Mr.. Sumner and the
minority of the Senate, and that only cow
| ardice takes shelter under that cloud Of vi
tuperation which has been spread over the
majority. But if 60. will you insist that
such exposure is really much harder to en-
dure than such security
But where, ON that day, did you discover
an example of that chivalry which you
would have had me initiate! Did you
find it among those daring Democrats who
voted against the organization of the COM
mittees. but without venturing to assign
reason for their votes! Or among those
reckless Republicans who acclaimed against
the same measure for hours, and then left
the Senate chamber without venturing to
record a vote against it! Do you find your
model Of chivalry in him who votes without
reasoning! Or in him who reasons without
voting?
You quote Mr.. Trumbull as the authority
| for the statement that I'm all the time he
had been in the Senate, never until then
| had chairman Of Q committee been
changed by his political friends, except at
his own request" i corrected that state
ment when it was made. l named one
notable instance to the contrary. could
have named others. The truth is, that since
Mr.. Trumbull has been . member Of the
| Senate the committees never have been
| once reorganized without making changes
! Of chairmen or members which have been
very distasteful to the individuals, and have
created many heartrburnings. So inevitable
is this that there is mot . Senator who has
ever Doeu 8SSl&u0U " tu0 Outy VI IcVASluS
the committees who does not shrink from a
repetition of the effort. 1t remains to he
seen who will assume such responsibility
hereafter, if it be understood that dissatis-
fed Senator may appeal not only from the
committee to the caucus both of whom are
composed Of his own party; but from the
caucus to the Senate, composed of both
parties; and from the Senate to the country,
composed Of all parties.
Mr.. Tilton, you have voluntarily taken
the stand to give the country your views of
this great question. You will not object to
slight cross-examination. Will you tell
| the country, upon your honor, whether, if
Senator Sherman had fallen into such
temper as that he would not speak either
! to the President or the Secretary of the
Treasury, and if for that reason the Senate
had placed him at the head of the Judiciary
Committee, instead Of the Committee on
Finance, would you have attacked the Sen
ate for doing sol But by what law do you
| demand for Mr.. Sumner consideration
which you would deny to another Senator
under the same circumstances L. it be-
cause of his Nro eminent greatness? But