[
634]
I never heard, until after his death, any suggestion that Senator Sumner was remiss in the discharge of his duties as chairman of that committee.
The suggestion greatly surprised me, for he was very remarkable for his punctual attendance in the Senate, and I had always supposed that he was equally diligent in the discharge of his committee duties.
I cannot but think that those who have intimated the contrary are very greatly mistaken.
Senator Bayard of
Delaware writes, Feb. 18, 1878:--
In reply to your inquiry as to the fidelity of the late Senator Sumner in conducting the business of the committee on foreign relations , while he was the chairman I will say that not having been a member of that committee I can speak only of its business as presented to the Senate; and there I can well attest Mr. Sumner's remarkable assiduity in attending to all the duties of his position.
In this he was conspicuous, and I never knew his steady fidelity to fail or flag even when ill-health and suffering would have given him ample excuse.
I cannot imagine a more frivolous pretext for his removal from the chairmanship he had held so many years than an alleged lack of attention to its duties.
In his lifetime I never heard such a suggestion, for it would have been considered absurd.
When he was deprived of the chairmanship, there was no man in the Senate so well equipped as he for the place, and not one more assiduous in his devotion to what he believed to be his duty; and in this there was no abatement until death relieved him.
Similar testimonies have been received from other associates of
Mr. Sumner in the Senate, as ex-Senators
Morrill of
Maine and
Logan of
Illinois, and
Senators Anthony,
Windom, and
Spencer; but there is not space to insert them here.
Senator Sherman of
Ohio, now
Secretary of the Treasury, in the debate on
Mr. Sumner's removal, March 10, 1871, while considering himself bound by the action of the caucus, declared the change “unjustifiable, impolitic, and unnecessary,” and after
Mr. Sumner's death, in a tribute to his memory, bore testimony to his remarkable fidelity.
The leading promoters of the removal admitted in the debate his perfect fidelity, and no senator alleged or hinted the slightest default either in the committee or in the Senate, whether arising from inattention, obstructiveness, or any other cause.
That was left for the fertile imaginations of
Mr. Fish and
Mr. Davis.
The breach of personal (not official) relations between the secretary and the senator was assigned as the cause of the removal by its advocates in the Senate debate of March 10, 1871.
But it was shown at the time that
Mr. Sumner was always ready to confer freely with
Mr. Fish on public business, and indeed had done so but a few weeks previous, and that the breach of personal relations was caused by “a gross insult,” so called in debate, which
Mr. Fish had given
Mr. Sumner in the despatch to
Mr. Moran of Dec. 30, 1870, previous to which they had been engaged in friendly intercourse and correspondence.
This “flimsy pretext” of non-intercourse, as it was termed by
Senator Schurz, did not avail at the time to mislead the public.
The debates in the caucus and in the Senate, and the public journals in their leaders, paragraphs, and correspondence, pointed to
Mr. Sumner's determined opposition to the
San Domingo scheme and his exposure of the proceedings of its leading promoters as the motive or justification of his displacement.
The reasons for
Mr. Sumner's removal heretofore given having failed,
Mr. 
