Page images
PDF
EPUB

except by virtue of an act of Congress. I understood the Senator from Connecticut to make this admission, and I believe the Senator from Virginia did also.

Mr. MASON here nodded assent.

Mr. TOUCEY. I mean, except by act of Congress, or a new treaty.

Mr. SUMNER.

But I put aside the whole idea of a new treaty, constituting in itself a new transaction, and involving the concurrence of the foreign Power. The President and Senate, with the concurrence of a foreign Power, may, of course, make a new treaty; but we are now dealing with the case where the whole proceeding is without any such concurrence. The question does not turn on the treaty-making power, but on the treaty-abrogating power. And I come back again to the admission of both Senators, that a treaty can be abrogated only by act of Congress. This admission is important, and, as it seems to me, conclusive.

But here a distinction is made by these Senators between treaties which contain no provision for their termination, and treaties which contain such provision. And I understand the Senator from Virginia to maintain that a treaty terminated in pursuance of such a provision is not abrogated. This is strange; for, in both cases, the treaty is brought to an end by our special intervention; and this is done without the concurrence of the other contracting party. If this is not the abrogation of a treaty, I do not see what can be. You may, if you choose, call it by a softer term, but still it is the same thing. The treaty is invalidated, or made to cease. But I will not argue this question. I submit to Senators opposite, who have maintained their views with so much constancy, that their position is not

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

tenable; I say this frankly, but with entire respect for their learning and ability. The same power must be invoked under our Constitution to terminate a treaty which contains a provision for its termination, on notice from either party, as to terminate a treaty which contains no such provision; and in both cases the treaty may properly be said to be abrogated. The single distinction between the two cases is, that the treaty in one case is abrogated in defiance of the other party, and, perhaps, on hostile ground; while in the other case it is abrogated in pursuance of a power specially reserved, and therefore without any just cause of offence; but in both cases the life of the treaty is destroyed by our act. Permit me to add, that the distinction made between these two classes of treaties is a distinction without a difference, and the admission that a treaty can be abrogated only by act of Congress is as applicable to one class as to another. It settles the question.

I rest, then, confidently, on the conclusion, that a treaty is a part of the supreme law of the land, and cannot be set aside, terminated, (superseded, disclaimed,) repealed, or abrogated, except by the exercise of the highest power known to the Constitution, embodying the collected will of the whole people in a legislative act, under the sanction of the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled.

The resolution, as modified, was adopted.

THE CRIME AGAINST KANSAS. THE APOLOGIES

FOR THE CRIME. THE TRUE REMEDY.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 19TH AND 20TH MAY, 1856, ON MR. DOUGLAS'S REPORT ON AFFAIES

IN KANSAS.

In the Senate, 13th March, 1856, Mr. Douglas, from the Committee on Territories, presented and read a very long Report on affairs in Kansas. Mr. Collamer also presented and read a Minority Report. As soon as the reading was completed, Mr. Sumner took the floor, and made the following remarks:

MR. SUMNER. In those two reports the whole subject is presented characteristically on both sides. In the report of the majority the true issue is smothered; in that of the minority the true issue stands forth as a pillar of fire to guide the country. The first report proceeds from four Senators; but against it I put, fearlessly, the report signed by a single Senator, [Mr. Collamer,] to whom I offer my thanks for this service. Let the two go abroad together. Error is harmless

while reason is left free to combat it.

I have no desire to precipitate the debate on this important question, under which the country already shakes from side to side, and which threatens to scatter from its folds civil war. Nor, indeed, am I dis

posed to enter upen it until I have had the opportunity of seeing in print the elaborate documents which have been read to us to-day. But I cannot allow the subject to pass away, even for this hour, without repelling at once, distinctly and unequivocally, the assault which has been made upon the Emigrant Aid Company of Massachusetts. That Company has done. nothing for which it can be condemned under the laws and constitution of the land. These it has not offended in letter or spirit; not in the slightest letter or in the remotest spirit. It is true it has sent men to Kansas; and had it not a right to send them? It is true, I trust, that its agents love Freedom and hate Slavery; and have they not a right to do so? Their offence has this extent, and nothing more. Sir, to the whole arraignment of that Company, in the report of the Committee on Territories, I now for them plead "Not guilty!" and confidently appeal to the country for that honorable acquittal which is due to their patriot services.

The outrages in Kansas are vindicated or extenuated by the alleged misconduct of the Emigrant Aid Company. Very well, sir; a bad cause is naturally staked on untenable ground. You cannot show the misconduct. Any such allegation will fail. And you now begin your game with loaded dice.

Afterwards, 19th March, Mr. Douglas introduced "A Bill to authorize the people of the Territory of Kansas to form a Constitution and State Government, and to provide for their admission into the Union when they have the requisite population." Subsequently, Mr. Seward moved, by way of substitute, another Bill, providing for immediate action, and entitled, "A Bill for the admission of the State of Kansas into the Union." Debate

ensued, and was continued, by adjournment, from time to time. In the course of this debate, on the 19th and 20th May, Mr. Sumi er made the following speech:

MR. PRESIDENT: You are now called to redress a great transgressior.. Seldom in the history of nations has such a question been presented. Tariffs, army bills, navy bills, land bills, are important, and justly occupy your care; but these all belong to the course of ordinary legislation. As means and instruments only, they are necessarily subordinate to the conservation of Government itself. Grant them or deny them, in greater or less degree, and you will inflict no shock. The machinery of Government will continue to move. The State will not cease to exist. Far otherwise is it with the eminent question now before you, involving, as it does, Liberty in a broad Territory, and also involving the peace of the whole country with our good name in history forevermore.

Take down your map, sir, and you will find that the Territory of Kansas, more than any other region, occupies the middle spot of North America, equally distant from the Atlantic on the east and the Pacific on the west; from the frozen waters of Hudson's Bay on the north and the tepid Gulf Stream on the south-constituting the precise territorial centre of the whole vast Continent. To such advantages of situation, on the very highway between two oceans, are added a soil of unsurpassed richness, and a fascinating, undulating beauty of surface, with a health-giving climate, calculated to nurture a powerful and generous people, worthy to be a central pivot of American Institutions. A few short months only have passed since this spacious mediterranean country was open only to the

« PreviousContinue »