Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1871-04-11
s ~ VOL. p, NO. As.
SENATORIAL DICTATIoN.
Leaf from History-The Story of the Mas.
sachusetts senator's Attempt 20 Drive Sec
rotary seward Out OF Lincoln's Cabinet.

"Cymon" I. Il. Crounse), of the
New York Times, writes from Wash
ington to that journal as follows:
| WASHINGTON, March Is, 1871.
In the discussions by the press up
on the removal of Mr.. Sumner, OBJ
serve a great many illusions to So
called Executive dictation," which
many people affect to believe had
much to do with the event. But /
venture to say that no one Senator
can be produced who will say that the
President ever requested him to vote
or use his influence to effect Mr..
Summers removal. There are many
Senators who felt the situation Of af-
fairs much more keeniy than did the
President, and they needed neither
dictstion from the Executive nor
from any other source toinduce them
to take the step they did. But
suppose, for the sake of argument,
that there was dictation. Are not
Senators always debating to the
President who shall compose his Cab
met, and what course he shall pur-
sue on public measures Are they
not always rendering their advice
whether invited to do so or not and
if we examine Senator Summers re-
cord, do we not find him guilty of
senatorial dictation in its most con-
spicuous form ? A few facts from the
history of Mr.. Lincoln's Administra-
ton will show that Mr.. Summers
hostility to Secretary Seward at one
time went so far that he proposed
resolution in q Senatorial caucus, at
lacking Mr.. Seward and calling up
on Mr.. Lincoln to remove him from
Office. On the 16 of December, 1862.
in Republican Senatorial caucus,
the question of Mr.. Lincoln's Cabinet
was considered, and resolution again
st Mr.. Seward, proposed by Mr.. Sum-
ner as above stated, received the
votes of that gentleman and fifteen
other Senators, while thirteen SEN
ators voted against it. Subsequent
ly, at another caucus, the resolution
was modified, on motion of the late
Mr. Collamer, so as to express the
sense of the Republican Senators
that the Cabinet should be reorgan-
lied, but no names were mentioned.
A committee of nine, of whom Sem
ator Sumner was one, was appointed
to lay the matrer before the Presi-
dent. In the meantime the late
Preston King, the Senator from New
York, had told Mr.. Seward of what
had been done. Mr. Seward prompt
ly placed his resignation in the Pres
idents hands, an act of which Mr..
Sumner, in his own case, has failed
to initiate. The committee waited
on the President, stated their case,
and were invited to call again.
and To Al t5es;rr an subsequent evening
Der of the Cabinet save Mr.. SeWWaaiFH G..
Mr.. Lincoln had invited them for
an interchange of opinion, and they
again stated their case. Mr.. Chase,
then Secretary of the Treasury, in
dignantly said that he had not come
there to be arraigned by Senators
for his conduct, bat subsequently
placed his resignation in the hands
the President, in order to leave
him free from embarrassment. But
Mr.. Lincoln dismissed his Senatorial
directors with fieas in their ears, re-
marking that he thought he was the
best judge of the ministerial conduct
of his Cabinet advisers, and there
upon requested Messr.. Seward and
chase to withdraw their designations.
which they did. The whole attack,
so far as Mr.. Sumner was concerned,
was leveled at Mr. Seward, and in
the attempt to force him out of the
Cabinet by senatorial dictation, Mr.
Sumner was chief dictator. Now
am far from expressing my opinion
whether the "dictation" of Mr. Sum-
ner and his brother Senators at the
time was justifiiable or not. But
if majority of the Republicans in
the Senate may say to President,
through caucus action, regarding the
formation of his Cabinet, ''that such
selections and changes in it's men,
bers should be made as will secure
to the country unity ofpurpose and
action in all material and essential
respects" may not majority of Re-
publican Senators in caucus say al
so that such changes and selections
should be made in the formation of
one of the Senate committees, as will
produce like results? And if the
President is known to sympathize
with such q movement, is he to be
held guilty of encroaching upon the
domain of a coordinate branch of
the Governmcnt-and to be charged
with debating and controlling such
changes by the power of Executive
patronage? Sober reflection by some
people who haev been using very hot
language on this subject will con-
vince them that it i'll becomes Mr.
Sumner and his friends to cry out
against "dictation" especially when
there is no evidence OF any.