Year: 1871

|
tfN' ner's Removal.


| --


In letter to Mr.. Theodore Tilton, OF
the Golden Age, under date of Washington
March 20, Senator Howe, of Wisconsin,
thus defended the removal of Mr.. Sumner
from the Craftsmanship of the. Committee
on Foreign Relations: Tt tsfe.
At the opening of the present session of
Congress, the Senate, as has been the
usage since the foundation of the govern
ment, madeseveral changes in its standing
committees. Two Senators were trans.
ferred from the Judiciary to other COM
mittees, The Chairman of the Committee
on Mines and Mining was transferred TO
the head of the Committee on Public
Lands. The Chairman Of the Committee
on Manufactures was transferred to the
head of the Committee on Agriculture.
The Chairman of the Committee on Ap-
| propriations was transferred to the head of
the Committee on the Library. It was
proposed to transfer the Chairman of the
Committee on Foreign Relations 10 the
head of the Committee on Privileges and
Elections. So far as can learn, both you
and the public are content with all these
changes, except the last. To the last, Won
and many others object. To that, these





/. That the change was made TO punish
Mr.. Sumner.


2. That it was made to punish him for
his opposition to the annexation of San
Domingo. fif $


3. That President Grant dictated the
punishment.


Allow me to assure you that each of
these assumptions is wholly groundless.
Allow me to convince you of it. Mr..
Sumner has not been punished at all. TO
deprive man. of office is not necessarily
to punish him. Much less is it punish
ment not to confer an office upon man.
Least of all is it punishment to confer
upon q man one office instead of another
of no greater dignity or emoument. This
last was the extent of the Senates offend
ing against Mr.. Sumner. He was not re-
moved from an office. He was not denied
an office. He was simply assigned to the
post of Chairman of Privileges and Elec-
tions instead of that on Foreign Relations.


This does not authorize you to represent
that Mr.. Sumner'was punished. Still less
doesi it authorize you to say that he was
struck down." But when you go far
beyond either of these expressions to
characterize this simple act as second
assassination, distinguished from the
the memorable and brutal personal assault
of Mr.. Brooks only by "a refinement of
cruelty" | submit that you owe an apol-
ogy, not to the Senate whose deliberate
action you malign, not to the people whose
understandings you abuse, but to the Eng
lish language, whose hottest prerogative
you betray.


You assume that the latter is the most
important committee of the Senate. You
have no authority in law or in reason for
that position. 1t is no more important
than the Committee on Finance, or than
that on the Judiciary. And there can be
no more important committee in any par
liamentary body than that to which is
committed the elections of its members
and the privileges of the body itself.


To all these reasons insist that you are
wholly mistaken in supposing that the
transfer of MIR. Simmer was an assault
upon him"


And you are equally mistaken in sup
posing that the transfer was caused by his
opposition to the annexation Of San Do
mingo. .r..1 .p..... ... XIII.
1t is quite in accord with parliamentary
usage that committees shonld be formed so
as to reflect what may be the fixed ideas
of the body upon subjects to be submitted
to their consideration. But it is not GER
tain MIR. Sumner could have been left off
the Committee on Foreign Relations
upon that ground. 1t is not certain that a
majority Of the Senate is in favor of ac-
quiring San Domingo. 1t is certain that
no attempt was made to leave him off for
that reason. 1t is certain that his opinions
upon the Dominican question were not
urged against him. They were not urged
in the Senate, as you know. They were
not urged elsewhere so far as know. Be-
sides, you know very well that Mr.. Sum-
ner had opposed annexation long prior to
last December Yet he was then placed
ON that committee in spite of that opposi-
ton. You know that other Senators be-
sides Mr.. Sumner have opposed annexa-
ton with equal steadfastness, and yet no
one has been molested.


! 1t is to be presumed that our Ministers
to China and Japan are both opposed to
Paganism. If it should be found that the
| former hated Paganism so violently that
he would not see the Emperor at all, and
would spit in the face ofa Mandarin when.
ever he met one, and if he should be re-
called, and dismissed the public service,
while the other was left in his place,
would it be quite fair TO assume that he
was "struck down" because he was op-
posed to paganism? But if, instead of be-
ing dismissed to private life, he should be
| simply transferred to another mission OF
equal dignity, would it not be very unfair
to hold him up as martyr to the Chris.
tian faithY


You are also mistaken in supposing the
transfer was the result of Executive dicta-
ton. Perhaps cannot pr0oe this. 1t is
always difficult to prove negative. Be-
Sides | have no doubt the President de.
sired a change of the chairman of that
committee. / have as little doubt Mr.
Sumner deprecated any change In that
respect. did not consult either of them
l do not remember to have seen either
while that subject was pending before the
caucus committee. If / did see them
neither of them spoke TO me upon that
subject. / should have conferred freely
with either, or with both, had they desired
to do so. If the President had offered tc
consult with me, l should not have re-
fused the conference. If he had asked me
to "strike down" Mr.. Sumner, think
should have declined to do so. If he had
asked me to infiict any punishment what
ever upon Mr.. Sumner, think should
have told him l had no criminal jurisdic
tion; that my business was to organize
committees, to transact the business of the
Senate, and not to discipline refractory
Senators. But if he had asked me simply
to assign to the head of the Committee OF
Foreign Relations some one out of Tho
flfty-flve Senators composing the Repub
lican force of the Senate, who woulC
speak either to him or the Secretary o
State, am sure l should have though
such request, coming from one mad,
President by the same party Whicf
| fnl,t
i nave baa Iae so r Sngf oTeferred 'Si%s1 %ad,
President by the same party which
made me Senator; and made Presiden
only two years apo, not as the reward o
eloquent sayings, bat in gratitude for tran
scendent doings; am sure should hav'
thought suCii a iequest from source no
| unreasonable I am Ellre / ahOuld hayl