The New York herald., 1872-12-14
SUMMERS FLAG FIGHT.
The Massachusetts Legislature in Arms Against
Summers Resolution in the United States Sem
ate to Erase the Inscriptions from the
Union Battle Flags-A Resolution
of Censure Discussed by the
VETS Of New England
BOSTON, Dec. Is, 1872.


ing TO-DAY to consider the resolutions introduced,
on leave In the House on Thursday by Mr.. Hoyt, OF
Athol. condemning the course OF Senator Sumner
in presenting bill in the United States Senate
for the erasure OF the Of battles with fellow
citizens from the army "Register" and regmental
cOlOrs.
Mr.. HoYT appeared in behalf OF his resolution
and presented MIR. summers BILL which was intro
duced in the national Senate December 2, and
which was laid uron the table and was now pend
ing in some form. The proposition was simply to
erase from the fags OF the regular army the list OF
the battles in which the regiments have engaged.
II the principle was right 1t would be shame to
keep the names on the lags in our own State
House. The proposition in effect concerned
every man who took part in the war.
The proposition was to reduce the Union
to the level OF the Confederate soldier. No other
deduction could be made from the bil Mr..
Sumner was elected by the Legislature, and this
resolve was the only means the people had OF ex-
pressing their reputation OF the atrocious propo-
sition. He offered 1t IN no partisan spirit, but as
a citizen and an old soldier, and thought that the
Legislature would do itself credit in the passage OF
the resolution.
Mr.. MUTT, member OF the House, from Natick,
followed in advocacy Of the resolution, and said
1t originated with Colonel H0yt, and was not as
had been charged, inspired by General Butler. 1t
was only beginning. Adopt this and the erasure
of tablets ana the levelling OF monuments would
follow, and such mutilated veterans as Sergeant
Plunkett must be put out OF sight,
Mr.. PORTER, OF Revere, concurred In the sent-
ment of the resolution, and had been asked to pre-
sent similar resolution himself. 1t presents re.
currence OF the same sentiments uttered by Mr..
Sumner, in 1s45. The relations OF those who
served In the army were very strong. They en-
dured privations for meagre pay, and had claims
o4 the consideration OF the country which no man
ate. They volunteered and performed their
duty nom a. sense Of right, and 1t was not
ony I Been man e Of Tor s these
ries should be thrown aside. The North was not
ready to forget their soldiers, and their record
should not be obhterated by any dash Of legisla
tiOn such as this. The Legislature of this State
would be recreant to its duty it failed to
this proposition from man who had only decried
war. -e->
In reply to q question from Mr.. Smith, Of the
committee, Mr.. PORTER said he should never agree
Capitol though he was willing they should cherish
the memories OF their brave men.
Mr.. PORTER read an editorial from the Richmond
Enquirer. opposing the proposition, and said he
would consider il sacriiege to ask the South to for
get the memories OF their brave men.
Mr.. THOMPSON, Of Gloucester. member OF the
committee, asked whether the brave men of the
South would not enlist in the army if their names
Mr.. PORTER said that the men who really did the
fighting on each side were good friends. IL was
only when the Union soldiers came into the hands
OF the Home Guards, at AndcrsOnviIe and else
where, that they were maltreated. Mr. Sumner
should be discreet in the iavors he would show the
South, as some measures OF friendship were an IN
jury. Mr. Sumcer If he was friendly to the
soldiers, might disgrace them as much as though
he was hostile
Mr.. HoYT, in reply to Mr.. Thompson, said the
rebellion was crime and if the men were dis
graced by the names Of the battles in which they
were defeated 1t the legitimate penalty OF their
crimes. These men should have the bla2Onry OF
their infamy perpetnated to the latest generation.
II the name OF the battle on the nag OF the regular
army would disgrace any man he should be dis
graced. Such men were not enllSt1ng from any love
| Tor the government, but from mercenary motives.
Mr. LINCOLN, member OF the committee from
| Boston, inquired whether Mr. H0yt would not con-
| sent to modification OF the resolutions as to
! deal simply with the bill. 1t was an unprece-
! dented measure to pass such personal censure
Mr.. HoYT replied that 1t was time to make
| precedent In order to rebuke Senator OF their
| own election.
as he was the author OF the resolution, and came
IRON this state.
Mr.. LINCOLN did not believe in instructing Sem
atOrs or nybody else.
Mr.. PORTER said the rule was that only the Chief
Executive and the members Of his Cabinet should
be above instruction.
Mr.. MUTT explained that the army register con-
tanned the list OF battles in which the Union arms
were defeated as well as when they were VIC
toriOus.
Mr.. LINCOLN did not want it understood that
he opposed the course OF the Senator.
Mr.. HOYT thought Ii would make little difference
to Senator Sumner whesner his name was men,
toned or not, and it was an honest man.ashon
way to do.
Mr.. RICHARDSON of the committee, said the Ian
guage OF the resolution was not strong enough to
express his personal feeling; but when they were
framing the voice OF the people OF Massachusetts
Of words.
This closed the public hearing.