Found 241 total hits in 123 results.
ght the Senate ought to adjourn; and three days later (Globe, pp. 733, 734) he referred to Sumner's chronic difficult about adjournments.
Similar pressure from Sumner, with similar resistance from other senators who recalled his uniform position on the suspension of business, will be found in the record of later sessions (June 25, 1864, Globe, p. 3263; July 2, 1864, Works, vol.
IX. pp. 55-63; July 26, 1866, Globe, pp. 4166, 4167; Dec. 14, 1868, Globe, p. 68; Dec. 15, 1869; May 5, 6, and 20, 1870, Globe, pp. 137, 3239, 3274, 3277, 3658; Feb 15, 1871, Globe, p. 1262). Thurman's tribute, April 27, 1874 (Globe, p. 3400), referred to Sumner's high estimate of the effect of full discussion. His persistence in opposing a limitation of the session, even under the oppressive heat of the summer, brought him sometimes into collision with senators who, though not laggards, took a less exacting view of official duty, or who thought, sometimes quite rightly, that enough had already been done, and
self, but of critical observers not bound to him by personal relations.
It was often given in his lifetime, and more freely when death had set the seal on his career.
Not denying to many of their contemporaries a certain measure of these noble qualities, their fullest development must be found in our time in two kindred characters,— John Bright and Charles Sumner.
See estimates in W. H. Channing's Life, by O. B. Frothingham, p. 367; Pall Mall Gazette, Dec. 26, 1866; Harper's Weekly, March 24, 1866; New York Herald, Dec 28, 1871, containing an article, in the characteristic style of that journal, from a correspondent who mingles praise and dispraise.
J. W. Forney wrote of Sumner (Anecdotes of public Men, vol.
II. p. 262): We are all human; the best, like the worst, are controlled more or less by personal motives.
But Sumner, I insist, was the supreme exception to this rule.
I never knew any man less moved by selfish instincts.
True, he had a lofty self-consciousness, or self-a