« ПретходнаНастави »
“Your reply to the slaveholders is capital, and receives universal ad. miration in this quarter. It was just such a flagellation as the slavocrats deserved, and such a one as they never received before in the Senate. I think, from what I can observe, that your course is universally popular, always excepting the mercenary minions of the Government."
J. P. Blanchard, Esq., devoted to Peace, wrote :
" I take this occasion to express my warm admiration of the spirit and power you have exhibited in your late contest with Messrs. Butler, Pettit, et id genus omne. I am rejoiced and grateful that your backbone' has proved strong enough to stand such a test without bending: that I have not given you this acknowledgment earlier is because, being very busy, I did not take time to write a letter for that purpose only, as I knew you were so well acquainted with my sympathies that the expression of them was unnecessary. I am glad to understand that you have received commendations on this score from sources where a short time ago you would not have expected them."
Elihu Burritt, the Missionary of Peace, wrote :
“And now I want to thank you with my whole heart for your grand and brave rejoinder to Butler and Mason. It was the best, bravest thing done in the Senate this many a year. I think more hearts in the Free States will glory in your courageous and overwhelming reply to these plantation Senators than in any public effort of your life. You must have made it, too, on short notice. I never read anything with more satisfaction.”
Other letters attest a change in sentiment among those who had been lukewarm on Slavery, and perhaps adverse to Mr. Sumner.
Hon. Daniel Shattuck, of Concord, wrote:-
“Being one of the old-time Whigs, I was not pleased with your election to the high seat which you hold: for that opinion you will forgive me, I sure, when I say that I go with you now heart and soul, and approve all you have said in defence of your native State, whose sons I know approve your course and wish you God-speed.”
George M. Browne, Esq., of Boston, wrote :
“ Differing with you as I do in political sentiments, and having no other connection with public affairs than what pertains to every citizen, I desire nevertheless to express to you, what I believe to be the general feeling among all classes of reflecting minds here, an admiration for the dignified and gentlemanly bearing with which you have gone through the contest and rebuked the ruffian onslaught, and to say, moreover, that we should, I have no doubt, all unite, from all sides, as one man, in sending you back to the Senate, should the maniac threats of expulsion by any possibility be carried into effect."
The following poem, suggested by this debate, belongs to this history.
TO C. S.
I have seemed more prompt to censure wrong
voice hath mingled with the exultant cheer
J. G. W.
PEACEFUL OPPOSITION TO THE FUGITIVE
LETTER TO THE MAYOR OF BOSTON, FOR THE CELEBRATION
JULY 4, 1854.
SENATE CHAMBER, 1st July, 1854. EAR SIR, -- I have been honored by the invita
tion of the municipal authorities of Boston to unite with them in commemorating the approaching anniversary of our National Independence.
Please tender to them my gratitude, that they have thus remembered me, an absent citizen, who tries to serve truth and justice in the sphere where he has been placed. Pleasure would take me home among congenial souls, but duty keeps me here.
The approaching anniversary of Independence in Boston should be something more than a show and expense. It ought to be the occasion of a practical vow to those primal principles of Freedom which have been assailed. Our municipal history should be carefully read, and, unless we are prepared to disown our fathers, the conduct of Boston at memorable times should be set forward anew, as an example which her children must never forget. I do not refer to the violent act by which her harbor was converted into a “teapot”; but I would especially dwell on the peaceful opposition, which, according to her own records, now preserved at the City Hall, she organized against a tyrannical and unconstitutional Act of Parliament, -- "bearing testimony against outrageous tumults and illegal proceedings," but never failing to "take legal and warrantable measures to prevent that misfortune, of all others the most to be dreaded, the execution of the Stamp Act." The City Clerk will find these words in his books, under date of 24th March, 1766, whence I have with my own hand copied them. With this great precedent of Freedom in my memory, I ask the municipal authorities
should I be remembered at their hospitable board — to propose in my name the following sentiment.
The City of Boston.-While still in colonial dependence, and with no aim at revolution, her municipal fathers steadfastly opposed the execution, within her borders, of an unconstitutional and tyrannical Act of Parliament, until, without violence or collision, it was at first practically annulled, and at last repealed. Truly honoring the Fathers, let Boston not depart from their example.
I remain, dear Sir, your faithful servant,
TO THE MAYOR OF BOSTON.
NO PENSION FOR SERVICE IN SUPPORT OF
THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT.
MINORITY REPORT TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THE
BILL GRANTING TO THE WIDOW OF JAMES BATCHELDER A PROVISION FOR HER FUTURE SUPPORT, JULY 13, 1854.
An attempt was made to obtain a pension for the widow of James Batchelder, killed in Boston, while guarding Anthony Burns, the fugitive slave, on the evening of May 26, 1854. A bill was reported from the Committee on Pensions. Mr. Sumner and Mr. Seward, constituting a minority of the Committee, made the following adverse report, which was drawn up by the former.
VIEWS OF MR. SUMNER AND MR. SEWARD.
THE undersigned, a minority of the Committee on
Pensions, cannot concur with the majority of the Committee in reporting a bill for the relief of the widow of the late James Batchelder. They also dissent from the report accompanying the bill, which, however, is understood not to proceed from a majority of the Committee.
In granting pensions, or bounties of a kindred nature, it has been the habit of the Committee to require evidence of all essential facts and circumstances, not, indeed, according to the rigorous forms of a court of law, but with substantial fulness and authenticity. Applications for pensions are constantly rejected for de