Year: 1871

characterize this simple act as "second
assd'sinatioD," distinguished from the


memorable and brutal personal assault Of


Mr. Brooks only by "a refinement Of
cruelty" | Isubmit that you owe an
apology, not to the Senate, whose delib-
crate action you maligu, not to the peo-
pie, whose understandings you abuse,
but to the English language, whose bo.
liest prerogative you betray.


You assume that the latter is the mos,
important Committee of the Senate


You have no authority in law or in rea-
son for that position. 1t is no more i'm
portant than the Committee on Finance.
or than that on the judiciary. And
there can be no more important Commit
tee in any parliamentary 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 Mr.. Sumner was an "as-
sault upon him"


And you are equally mistaken in sup
posing that the transfer was caused
by his opposition to the annexation OF
Santo Domingo.


II is quite in accord with parliamenta.
ry usage that committees should ue
formed SO as to reflect what may be the
fixed ideas of the body upon subjects to
be submi ted To their consideration But
it is not certain Mr.. Sumner could have
been left off the Committee on Foreign
Relations upon that ground. 1t is not
certain that majority of the Senate is
in favor Of acquiring Santo Domingo.
1t as certain that no attempt was made
to leave him off for that reason. 1t is
certain that his opinions upon the Dom
inican question were not urged against
him. They were not urged in the Sen
ate as you know. They were not urged
elsewhere SO far as l know. Besides
you know that Mr.. Sumner had opposed
annexation long prior to last December.
Yet he was then placed upon that Com
mittee in spite of that opposition. You
know that other Senators besides Mr..
Sumner have opposed annexation with
equal steadfastness, and yet no one of
them have been molested.


1t is to be assumed 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 wosld spit in the face of Man
DARN whenever he met one, and if he
should be recalled, and dismissed the
public service, while the other was left
in his place, would it be quite fair to as
sumo that he was "struck down" because
he was opposed to Paganism? But if,
instead of being dismissed to private
lite, he should be simply transferred to
another mission of equal dignity, would
it not be very unfair to hold him up as a
martyr to the Christian faith?


You are also mistaken in supposing
the transfer was the result of Executive
dictation. Perhaps | cannot proye this.
1t is always difficult to prove negative.
Besides have no doubt the President
desired 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.
[ 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. l should have conferred
freely with either or with both, had they
desired to do so. If the President had
offered to consult with me, should not
have refused the conference. If he had
asked me to ''strike down" Mr.. Summer,
think should have declined to do so.
If he had asked me to inhict any punish
ment whatever upon Mr.. Sumner, |
think should have told him had no
criminal jurisdiction 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 on Foreign Rela-
tions some one out of the fitty-five Sena-
tors composing the Republican force of
the Senate, who would speak either to
him or the SECRETARY of State, am sure
! should have thought such request,
coming from one made President by the
same party which might have made Mr..
Sumner President if it had so preferred;
made President by the same party which.
made me Senator; and made President
only two years ago, not as a reward of
ttutucUt say HlSS, ouu III 3 Sialituuc loI
doings; am sure should
have thought such request from such
source not unreasonable. / am sure l
should have complied with such a re-
quest because it is no more than adyis-
ed to be done without any request of the
kind. But would it have been fair to
that the President dictated my
views, if had only done after consulta-
ton what | did without consultation?
Every day confer with private parties
npon public measures in which they feel
a personal interest. Some times my ac-
ton accords with their views. Is it
charitable 10 conclude, therefore, that
they dictate my action? Have you more
reason to believe that the President die
tated the votes of the majority than that
Mr. Sumner dictated the votes Of the
Have you moro evidence that
the President dictated my course than
have that Mr.. Sumner dictates yours
Or is it higher crime for President to
influence the course of Senator than |
for Senator to prevert free press p
Do you know of anything in the Consti-
tuition, or the laws, or in political usage,