Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4

[631] I never saw or heard an intimation that he was either slack or obstructive in the discharge of his duties as chairman until I read the paper lately published by Ex-Secretary Fish in response to Mr. Phillips's strictures upon the utterances of President Grant relative to Mr. Sumner. It so happened that I was absent from Washington, attending the annual election in New Hampshire at the time Mr. Sumner was dropped from his committee, and so did not hear the discussions upon that subject, either in the caucus or the Senate. It was, however, a matter of frequent conversation after my return; and I do not remember to have heard any one give, as a reason for his being dropped, a premeditated and wilful holding back of treaties which had been referred to the committee, or even a careless neglect of foreign affairs.

It was rare, if ever, that the files of our committee were cumbered with unconsidered business. It was Mr. Sumner's habit to drive his work, and not to be driven by it. He kept the table of the committee clear, and ready for new matter as it came to hand. It certainly never occurred to me—and I have no reason to suppose it did to any of my associates upon the committee—that our chairman's zeal in the discharge of his official duties flagged during his last term of service, or that personal feelings toward the Secretary of State influenced his action as a senator in the slightest degree. The charge that Mr. Sumner, simply to gratify personal spite, designedly and maliciously delayed action, either in the committee or the Senate, upon pending treaties, is something worse than an after-thought. The record shows it to be untrue, and a wrong done to the memory of a statesman whose name will be revered and honored in spite of this violation of the rest of the grave.

Mr. Sumner undoubtedly had great confidence in his own judgment of public affairs, and perhaps was liable through the strength of his feelings to do injustice to the motives and opinions of others; but he was not suspicious or malignant, and his patriotism was too constant and strong ever to have allowed him to gratify his personal dislikes to the sacrifice of a public duty. All the treaties mentioned by Mr. Fish in the article already alluded to, when referred to the committee, were taken up and acted upon with the usual promptness, and were reported back to the Senate by our chairman with no more than the ordinary and necessary delay. Nor did Mr. Sumner's activity stop there. More than once, as I well remember, he reminded the Senate that those treaties were on its table, and waiting its action; but as no one of them was of such a character as to demand immediate action, and as no real interest of the country would be sacrificed by delay, the Senate preferred to go on with the legislative business upon its crowded calendar during the short term, and so declined to go into executive session for the consideration of the treaties. Two out of the nine treaties spoken of by Ex-Secretary Fish, it is true, could not be classed among what are called “stock treaties.” They did not relate to the general questions of international intercourse, but yet were of such a character as would allow them to be held in abeyance without detriment to any public interest. That relating to the Mexican commissioners, it was understood, would meet with serious opposition, and could only be ratified, if at all, after long debate. The Darien Canal treaty had such wide and far-reaching relations, and was to inaugurate expensive and protracted operations in a locality so distant and little understood, that it demanded time for investigation, both in the committee and the Senate. It was therefore thought best that these should go over with the others to the extra session, when there would be ample time to consider them. It is not an unusual thing—indeed I think I may say it is the common practice of the Senate—to allow executive business pending near the close of a session, if it does not press for immediate action, to go over to the extra or special session, if it is understood there is to be one. This gives time for the consideration of legislative business, which always crowds, and necessitates hasty action in the closing days of Congress.