This text is part of:
[471]
relations were as yet undisturbed.
Howe gave also as a reason that the majority of the Senate being in favor of the annexation of San Domingo (a fact which had not appeared by any vote), it was proper to constitute the committee so that it should represent the majority.
Wilson expressed the general belief in saying that the real cause was the San Domingo business.
A motion was made to recommit, with instructions to report the list as it was at the last session.
This was the test vote, those opposed to Sumner's removal voting for the recommitment.
It failed by a vote of twenty-one to twenty-six.1 The caucus met again the next morning, when a motion to reconsider the vote by which the report was adopted failed by a vote of twenty-one to twenty-three,—a falling off of three from the opposition to the senator.
Sumner was present when the caucus met, but left as soon as this motion was made, anticipating correctly that its consideration would involve a debate concerning himself.
On the 10th Howe moved in the Senate the adoption of the list, with Cameron at the head of the committee on foreign relations, and Sumner at the head of that on privileges and elections.
Sumner asked to be excused from taking the place assigned him, saying that after twenty years of service he felt that a new class of duties which were not welcome should not be imposed upon him; and his request was granted.
Schurz moved a postponement of the vote on the list, hoping to have differences reconciled; but his motion was rejected.
He then referred to Sumner's long service and rare fitness for a post which he had filled ‘with great credit to himself and to the committee, and with great satisfaction to the American people,’ and called on Howe to give the reasons for the change.
There was an indisposition on
1 The yeas for recommitment were as follows: Cragin (N. H.). Morrill (Maine), Morrill (Vt.), Ferry (Conn.), Wilson (Mass.). Sprague (R. I.), Fenton (N. Y.), Sherman (Ohio), Windom（Minn.), Wright (Iowa), Logan (Ill.), Trumbull (Ill.), Tipton (Neb.), Hitchcock (Neb.), Caldwell (Kan.), Corbett (Oreron), Schurz (Mo.), Boreman (W. Va.), Kobertson (S. C.), Spencer (Ala.), Gilbert (Fla.). The nays were Hamlin (Maine), Edmunds (Vt.), Conkling (N. Y ), Frelinghuysen (N. J.), Scott (Penn.), J. Hill (Ga.), Morton Ind.), Harlan (Iowa) Howe (Wis.), Carpenter (Wis.), Chandler (Mich.), Ferry (Mich.), Pomeroy (Kan.), Nye (Nev.), Stewart (Nev.), Ramsey (Minn.), Lewis (Va.), Brownlow (Tenn.), Pool (N. C.), Sawyer (S C.), Osborn (Fla.), West (La.), Kellogg (La.), Ames (Miss.), Flanagan (Texas), Cole (Col.). Some reports put Hamilton (Texas) in place of Flanagan (Texas), and Pratt (Ind.) in place of J. Hill (Ga.); but Pratt's eulogy on Sumner, April 27, 1874, makes it improbable that he favored Sumner's removal. Those reported as speaking in the caucus for the removal were Nye. Hamlin, Stewart, Conkling, Howe, Edmunds, and Carpenter,—the last named making the longest speech. Those reported as speaking against the removal were Wilson, Schurz, Fenton, Sherman, Ferry (Conn.), Trumbull, Corbett, and Morrill (Vt.).
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.