American citizen. [volume] (Canton, Miss.) 1864-1890, 1874-05-16
The Punishment Of Sumner.

The Senate on Tuesday, while the veto
was under discussion, debated for one
hour the question why Mr.. Sumner was
deposed from the Craftsmanship of the
Committee on Foreign Relations. MIR.
Thurman. of Ohio, suggested that he had
been deposed because he had differed
from the President on the San Domingo
question. Mr.. Edmunds, of Vermont,
declared that there was no authority for
saying that Mr.. Sumner was pursued by
the Administration. Mr. Howe, of Wis.
consin, said that the same caucus which
had removed Mr.. Sumner from the Com
mittee ON Foreign Relations had rendered
him place at the head of the Committee
on Elections. Old Simon Cameron fol-
lowed, protesting that he had not robbed
MIR. Sumner OF the place; that he in
tended to refuse it; but, hearing some
other Senator speak of him in uncOm-
plimentary terms he had determined to
retain it. Mr.. Hamlin. of Maine, finally
plucked up courage to give reason why
the Republican caucus had thrust MIR.
Sumner off the committee, and it was
that Mr.. Sumner was not on speaking
terms with the President or Secretary of
State. MIR. Howe again returned to the
matter, confirming the statement of Mr..
Hamlin, and declaring that the San Do
mingo matter had no connection with the
removal.
Fortunately we have Mr.. Summers own
version of the whole affair. During the
war Mr.. Sumner rendered invaluable
services to the Government as its adviser
in all that pertained to foreign affairs.
The testimony of ex-Secretary Welles is
conclusive on this point. When Mr.. Fish
became Secretary of State, in 1869, he was
wholly inexperienced, and found in Mr..
Sumner a warm personal and official
friend. This friendship, personal and Of
fetal, continued until Mr.. Sumner by his
earnest opposition killed the San Domin-
go treaty. That treaty, though its fate
was sealed, was not formally rejected for
long time afterward. 1t becomes i'm
portant, therefore, to know when and why
Mr.. Sumner was not on speaking terms
with the President or Secretary of State.
Mr.. Summer tells the story in his sup
pressed speech, which has recently been
published. 1t appears that when he OPP
posed the treaty he made an elaborate
report and speech against the whole
scheme, and criticised the manner in
which the treaty had been negotiated.
The President was very indignant, and
declared that were he not President he
would hold the Senator personally respon-
sible. Gen. Babcock, the Presidents
Secretary, and the special envoy to San
Domingo who negotiated the treaty, de-
clared that, if he were not an officer of
the army, he would horsewhip Mr.. Sum-
ner for his speech. These gentle admo
nitiOns induced Mr.. Sumner to drop the
White House from his list of visiting
places, and he was never again invited
there. His personal and official relations
with Mr.. Fish continued, however. The
two visited personally, and had frequent
the period when the San Domingo treaty
laid on the Senate table. On the eve OF
the final vote on that treaty Mr.. Fish
visited him at his house, and, during
discussion prolonged until after mid
night, sought to change his views upor
the treaty, and then, all else failing
offered to bride him to abandon his
place in the Senate by proposing to make
him Minister to England. Mr.. Sumner
rejected the bride. Mr.. Motley, his
friend, was removed from London because
he was Summers friend, and, thereafter
the Secretary of State and the man who
had rejected his bride were not on speak
ing terms
Then the Secretary of State informed
the Senate caucus that the President, anC
the Presidents Private Secretary, and Mr.
Fish were not on speaking terms will
the Senator, and the dutiful and obedien
caucus, well knowing that the ALLEGED
excuse was the results of the Senator.
opposition to San Domingo, dismissed
Mr.. Sumner from the head of the commit
tee and appointed Mr.. Cameron in hi
place. Now, with these facts made public
Mr.. Hamlin and Mr.. Howe declare he wa
not degraded because of his opposition t.
the San Domingo measure, but for tn
reason that the President and Secretary o
State were not on speaking terms witt
him. 1t is fortunate that Mr.. Sumner LEI
behind him an explanation why he wa
N Megsrc
Babcock, and Fish.-Chicago Tribun,
ADTH 20