[440]
session for signing bills, and there sent for senators to meet him. He was there a day or two before the committee began the deliberate consideration of the treaties.
Two days after the adverse report he was there again, and sent for as many as fourteen senators; and he was reported as making another similar visit three days before the final rejection.
This unprecedented activity was the occasion of considerable comment at the time.1
The treaties lay with the committee till March 11, when Babcock was present at its meeting to explain them.
Four day later it made a report adverse to a ratification, in which Sumner, Patterson, Schurz, Cameron, and Casserly joined.
Cameron, however, explained at the time that under some circumstances he might hereafter vote for annexation.
The minority, who were in favor of ratification, were Morton and Harlan.
Ferry moved, with Sumner supporting him, that the treaties be considered in open session of the Senate; but the motion did not prevail.
The debate began on the 24th.
The tenor of debates in secret session is obtained by correspondents, who ply the senators with inquiries and receive answers more or less full; and generally they obtain the chief points with considerable correctness.
In this instance they described Sumner's speech, lasting four hours, which opened the debate, as ‘very able, exhaustive, and scholarly, . . . the finest effort he ever made, . . . covering all the points likely to arise in connection with the subject,’ and ‘holding the attention of the Senate throughout its entire delivery.’
the correspondents do not state that he referred to the irregularity of the negotiation and the use of the war ships; he appears to have made that point briefly at a later day, but not in a way to provoke an issue with the Administration.2 He is reported to have expressed confidence in the President's entire honesty in the transaction, and no account attributes to him any different expression.3 All
1 See the New York journals in March, 1870. Under an ancient but disused rule the President can meet the Senate when in executive session. Washington met the Senate before any regular system of intercourse was established.
2 Remarks in Senate, March 28, 1871. Congressional Globe, App. p. 45. The Washington ‘Chronicle,’ March 26, 1870, said that he made no attack on the negotiations, and said nothing on this head, while he spoke ‘with great courtesy of the President.’ He was less informed at this time as to the use of the navy and Babcock's proceedings than at a later date.
3 There was a good deal of speculation in the scheme, and the President did not look keenly into his surroundings: but Sumner uniformly disclaimed imputations on the President's personal integrity, and invoked his associates to bear witness to the truth of his disclaimer, saying: ‘I have never alluded to the President in executive session except in most respectful kindness, and I challenge anybody to say the contrary.’ （In Senate, Dec. 21, 1870, Congressional Globe, pp. 217, 218. 247. Statement, March, 1871, Works, vol. XIV. p. 257.) The President, however, assumed otherwise in communicating to Congress the report of the commissioners to San Domingo.
Cambridge, MA. Press of John Wilson and Son. 1877.
Tufts University provided support for entering this text.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.