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

[628] mode of justifying by proxy has two advantages: it relieves Mr. Fish of the unpleasant necessity of stating at the outset how he came to make such untrue charges against a dead senator, and further enables him to avoid responsibility for new positions taken in his defence, which may be found as unsubstantial as his original charge of ‘pigeon-holing’ treaties. It is even better for the purpose than ‘interviewing,’ in which the interviewed, when his statements have been shown to be contrary to the fact, with great facility changes his positions, coolly throwing on the interviewer the responsibility of misapprehending him. Not, however, from Mr. Davis or any other substitute, but from Mr. Fish himself, under his own hand, an explanation is required by every law of moral duty.

Mr. Davis's method of narration is certainly unique. He relates some conversations where plainly he was not present, others in a way that leaves the reader in doubt whether he is reciting another's story or his own; talks of the thoughts, anxieties, remembrances, and states of mind of Mr. Fish, as if the two were one; and recounts frequent and long interviews at Mr. Fish's house (matters concerning which Mr. Fish is the only competent witness), and in some instances he differs radically from Mr. Fish's versions. He undertakes to say, giving no authority, what took place between Mr. Sumner and Mr. Fish, Jan. 13, 1871, at Mr. Sumner's house, when they two were alone together, and what Mr. Fish said to senators when he (Mr. Davis) does not claim to have been present. The paper abounds in vague phrases, as, ‘it was said;’ ‘it was no secret;’ one Republican senator went so far; ‘the President and Mr. Fish stated to more than one senator;’ ‘there appeared on the part of leading Republican members,’—in all which the generality of allegation and suppression of names make any attempt to test the truth of the statements impossible. If he is a witness, let him qualify by showing presence and opportunity; and if he is only acting as amanuensis of Mr. Fish, let him say so. A paper of such a character as he has given carries no weight as evidence.

One part—and a large part it is—of Mr. Fish's as well as of Mr. Davis's statements ought to be eliminated from the discussion. They write with facility of the conversations of Mr. Sumner which are not now subject to his denial, or the different version he might give; and they undertake to put in testimony of this kind which they did not give in his lifetime. Recent statutes deny to a party the right to testify to the conversations of a deceased adversary, for manifest reasons of public policy. The rule is justly applicable to other than legal controversies, and should be applied more stringently against parties whose previous allegations against the deceased have proved untrue. Folsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, is a maxim which, though subject to limitations, holds a legitimate place in the law of evidence. The public will require better proof of Mr. Sumner's conversations, manner, and thoughts than such testimony from such a source.

Mr. Davis in his paper jumps the charge of ‘pigeon-holing’ with an acrobat's dexterity. He says that ‘at or about the time the change [Mr. Sumner's removal] took place, the President and Mr. Fish stated to more than one senator that the current business of the department of state had been neglected in the Senate during the present session, and particularly that no treaty which had been sent to the Senate during the session which followed Motley's recall ’