to give good or plausible reasons for it. Sumner's colleague voted for it finally, confession that nine-tenths of his constituents were opposed to it; and he was governed in his vote only by fear of a rupture with the President.
A polpular demonstration in its favor was attempted at Cooper Institute in New York, evidently stimulated from Washington.
Moses H. Grinnell, collector of the port, took the chair, and the speakers were two members of Congress,—Banks of Massachusetts, and Fitch of Nevada.
Fabens, the speculator, already mentioned, was on the platform.
The conservative patriotism of the city kept aloof from the affair.
One of the incidents of the San Domingo controversy was the investigation by the Senate of the imprisonment by the Baez government of Davis Hatch of Connecticut, described by Senator Ferry from that State to be as high-toned and honorable a gentleman as any in the Senate.
The charge against him was that he was a partisan of Cabral; but the real purpose of
ntroversy, and not doubting the result.
The vote was taken on the second day of the debate, and resulted in a tie,— twenty-eight to twenty-eight, not the two-thirds required.
The vote was reported as follows (Democrats in italics): For the treaty—Abbott (N. C.), Brownlow (Tenn.), Cameron (Penn.), Cattell (N. J.), Chandler (Mich.), Cole (Cal.), Conkling (N. Y.), Corbett (Oregon), Drake (Mo.), Fenton (N. Y.), Hamlin (Me.), Harlan (Iowa), Howard (Mich.), Howell (Iowa), McDonald (Ark.). Morton (Ind.), Nye (Nev.), Osborn (Fla.), Pratt (Ind.), Ramsey (.Minn.), Revels (Miss.), Rice (Ark.), Spencer (Ala.), Stewart (Nev.), Thiayer (Neb.), Warner (Ala.), Williams (Oregon), Wilson (Mass.). Against the treaty,—Boreman (W. Va.), Casserly) (Cal.), Cragin (N. H.), Davis (Ky.), Edmunds (Vt.), Ferry (Conn.), Fowler (Tenn.), Hamilton (Md.), Harris (La.), Johnston (Va.), McCreery (Ky.), Morrill (me.), Morrill (Vt), Patterson (N. H.), Pool (N. C.), Robertson (S. C.), Ross (Kan.), Saulsbury (Del.), S<
emarks, beginning on the 29th, and finishing the next day. Sumner was silent, showing no disposition for controversy, and not doubting the result.
The vote was taken on the second day of the debate, and resulted in a tie,— twenty-eight to twenty-eight, not the two-thirds required.
The vote was reported as follows (Democrats in italics): For the treaty—Abbott (N. C.), Brownlow (Tenn.), Cameron (Penn.), Cattell (N. J.), Chandler (Mich.), Cole (Cal.), Conkling (N. Y.), Corbett (Oregon), Drake (Mo.), Fenton (N. Y.), Hamlin (Me.), Harlan (Iowa), Howard (Mich.), Howell (Iowa), McDonald (Ark.). Morton (Ind.), Nye (Nev.), Osborn (Fla.), Pratt (Ind.), Ramsey (.Minn.), Revels (Miss.), Rice (Ark.), Spencer (Ala.), Stewart (Nev.), Thiayer (Neb.), Warner (Ala.), Williams (Oregon), Wilson (Mass.). Against the treaty,—Boreman (W. Va.), Casserly) (Cal.), Cragin (N. H.), Davis (Ky.), Edmunds (Vt.), Ferry (Conn.), Fowler (Tenn.), Hamilton (Md.), Harris (La.), Johnston (Va.), McCreery (Ky.), Morril<
frican nativity or descent was carried, and became a part of the Act as passed.
The differences between Trumbull and Sumner on fundamental conditions did not prevent their hearty co-operation on this question.
A few days later.
Sumner, when a bill to prohibit contracts for servile labor was pending, renewed his motion for the exclusion of the word white from the naturalization laws, again standing on the Declaration of Independence and protesting against the imposition of disabilities on Chinese emigrants to this country;
July 8; Congressional Globe, pp. 5387, 5.388. Longfellow wrote to G. W. Greene, July 10: I wish this faineant Congress would rise and let Sumner loose.
I agree with him about the Chinese, and about striking the word white out of every law of the land; of course you do. but his proposition did not come to a vote.
He said in the debate:—
We send missionaries to the distant heathen, and there are annual contributions for that purpose,—wise contributions; b
, and finishing the next day. Sumner was silent, showing no disposition for controversy, and not doubting the result.
The vote was taken on the second day of the debate, and resulted in a tie,— twenty-eight to twenty-eight, not the two-thirds required.
The vote was reported as follows (Democrats in italics): For the treaty—Abbott (N. C.), Brownlow (Tenn.), Cameron (Penn.), Cattell (N. J.), Chandler (Mich.), Cole (Cal.), Conkling (N. Y.), Corbett (Oregon), Drake (Mo.), Fenton (N. Y.), Hamlin (Me.), Harlan (Iowa), Howard (Mich.), Howell (Iowa), McDonald (Ark.). Morton (Ind.), Nye (Nev.), Osborn (Fla.), Pratt (Ind.), Ramsey (.Minn.), Revels (Miss.), Rice (Ark.), Spencer (Ala.), Stewart (Nev.), Thiayer (Neb.), Warner (Ala.), Williams (Oregon), Wilson (Mass.). Against the treaty,—Boreman (W. Va.), Casserly) (Cal.), Cragin (N. H.), Davis (Ky.), Edmunds (Vt.), Ferry (Conn.), Fowler (Tenn.), Hamilton (Md.), Harris (La.), Johnston (Va.), McCreery (Ky.), Morrill (me.), Morrill (Vt), Patters<
treaty—Abbott (N. C.), Brownlow (Tenn.), Cameron (Penn.), Cattell (N. J.), Chandler (Mich.), Cole (Cal.), Conkling (N. Y.), Corbett (Oregon), Drake (Mo.), Fenton (N. Y.), Hamlin (Me.), Harlan (Iowa), Howard (Mich.), Howell (Iowa), McDonald (Ark.). Morton (Ind.), Nye (Nev.), Osborn (Fla.), Pratt (Ind.), Ramsey (.Minn.), Revels (Miss.), Rice (Ark.), Spencer (Ala.), Stewart (Nev.), Thiayer (Neb.), Warner (Ala.), Williams (Oregon), Wilson (Mass.). Against the treaty,—Boreman (W. Va.), Casserly) (Cal.), Cragin (N. H.), Davis (Ky.), Edmunds (Vt.), Ferry (Conn.), Fowler (Tenn.), Hamilton (Md.), Harris (La.), Johnston (Va.), McCreery (Ky.), Morrill (me.), Morrill (Vt), Patterson (N. H.), Pool (N. C.), Robertson (S. C.), Ross (Kan.), Saulsbury (Del.), Sawyer (S. C.), Schurz (Mo.). Scott (Penn.), Sprague (R. I.), Stockton (N. J.), Sumner (Mass.), Thurman (O.), Tipton (Neb.), Vickers (Md.), Willey (W. Va.). Pairs for the treaty,—Ames (Miss.), Anthony (R. I.), Carpenter (Wis.), Gilbert (Fla.), Ha<
