north america-2-第8章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


e　art　itself。　I　think　he　left　the　matter　very　much　where　he　found　it。　　The　men；　however；　were　to　be　surrendered；　and　the　good　policy　consisted　in　this；　that　no　delay　was　sought；　no　diplomatic　ambiguities　were　put　into　request。　　It　was　the　opinion　of　very　many　that　some　two　or　three　months　might　be　gained　by　correspondence；　and　that　at　the　end　of　that　time　things　might　stand　on　a　different　footing。　　If　during　that　time　the　North　should　gain　any　great　success　over　the　South；　the　States　might　be　in　a　position　to　disregard　England's　threats。　No　such　game　was　played。　　The　illegality　of　the　arrest　was　at　once　acknowledged；　and　the　men　were　given　up　with　a　tranquillity　that　certainly　appeared　marvelous　after　all　that　had　so　lately　occurred。　Then　came　Mr。　Sumner's　field　day。　　Mr。　Charles　Sumner　is　a　Senator　from　Massachusetts；　known　as　a　very　hot　abolitionist；　and　as　having　been　the　victim　of　an　attack　made　upon　him　in　the　Senate　House　by　Senator　Brooks。　　He　was　also；　at　the　time　of　which　I　am　writing；　Chairman　of　the　Committee　on　Foreign　Affairs；　which　position　is　as　near　akin　to　that　of　a　British　minister　in　Parliament　as　can　be　attained　under　the　existing　Constitution　of　the　States。　　It　is　not　similar；　because　such　chairman　is　by　no　means　bound　to　the　government；　but　he　has　ministerial　relations；　and　is　supposed　to　be　specially　conversant　with　all　questions　relating　to　foreign　affairs。　It　was　understood　that　Mr。　Sumner　did　not　intend　to　find　fault　either　with　England　or　with　the　government　of　his　own　country　as　to　its　management　of　this　matter；　or　that；　at　least；　such　fault…finding　was　not　his　special　object；　but　that　he　was　desirous　to　put　forth　views　which　might　lead　to　a　final　settlement　of　all　difficulties　with　reference　to　the　right　of　international　search。　On　such　an　occasion；　a　speaker　gives　himself　very　little　chance　of　making　a　favorable　impression　on　his　immediate　hearers　if　he　reads　his　speech　from　a　written　manuscript。　　Mr。　Sumner　did　so　on　this　occasion；　and　I　must　confess　that　I　was　not　edified。　　It　seemed　to　me　that　he　merely　repeated；　at　greater　length；　the　arguments　which　I　had　heard　fifty　times　during　the　last　thirty　or　forty　days。　　I　am　told　that　the　discourse　is　considered　to　be　logical；　and　that　it　〃reads〃　well。　　As　regards　the　gist　of　it；　or　that　result　which　Mr。　Sumner　thinks　to　be　desirable；　I　fully　agree　with　him；　as　I　think　will　all　the　civilized　world　before　many　years　have　passed。　　If　international　law　be　what　the　lawyers　say　it　is；　international　law　must　be　altered　to　suit　the　requirements　of　modern　civilization。　　By　those　laws；　as　they　are　construed；　everything　is　to　be　done　for　two　nations　at　war　with　each　other；　but　nothing　is　to　be　done　for　all　the　nations　of　the　world　that　can　manage　to　maintain　the　peace。　　The　belligerents　are　to　be　treated　with　every　delicacy；　as　we　treat　our　heinous　criminals；　but　the　poor　neutrals　are　to　be　handled　with　unjust　rigor；　as　we　handle　our　unfortunate　witnesses　in　order　that　the　murderer　may；　if　possible；　be　allowed　to　escape。　　Two　men　living　in　the　same　street　choose　to　pelt　each　other　across　the　way　with　brickbats；　and　the　other　inhabitants　are　denied　the　privileges　of　the　footpath　lest　they　should　interfere　with　the　due　prosecution　of　the　quarrel！　　It　is；　I　suppose；　the　truth　that　we　English　have　insisted　on　this　right　of　search　with　more　pertinacity　than　any　other　nation。　　Now　in　this　case　of　Slidell　and　Mason　we　have　felt　ourselves　aggrieved；　and　have　resisted。　　Luckily　for　us　there　was　no　doubt　of　the　illegality　of　the　mode　of　seizure　in　this　instance；　but　who　will　say　that　if　Captain　Wilkes　had　taken　the　〃Trent〃　into　the　harbor　of　New　York；　in　order　that　the　matter　might　have　been　adjudged　there；　England　would　have　been　satisfied？　　Our　grievance　was；　that　our　mail…packet　was　stopped　on　the　seas　while　doing　its　ordinary　beneficent　work。　　And　our　resolve　is；　that　our　mail…packets　shall　not　be　so　stopped　wit　impunity。　　As　we　were　high　handed　in　old　days　in　insisting　on　this　right　of　search；　it　certainly　behoves　us　to　see　that　we　be　just　in　our　modes　of　proceeding。　　Would　Captain　Wilkes　have　been　right；　according　to　the　existing　law；　if　he　had　carried　the　〃Trent〃　away　to　New　York？　　If　so；　we　ought　not　to　be　content　with　having　escaped　from　such　a　trouble　merely　through　a　mistake　on　his　part。　　Lord　Russell　says　that　the　voyage　was　an　innocent　voyage。　　That　is　the　fact　that　should　be　established；　not　only　that　the　voyage　was；　in　truth；　innocent；　but　that　it　should　not　be　made　out　to　be　guilty　by　any　international　law。　　Of　its　real　innocency　all　thinking　men　must　feel　themselves　assured。　　But　it　is　not　only　of　the　seizure　that　we　complain；　but　of　the　search　also。　An　honest　man　is　not　to　be　bandied　by　a　policeman　while　on　his　daily　work；　lest　by　chance　a　stolen　watch　should　be　in　his　pocket。　　If　international　law　did　give　such　power　to　all　belligerents；　international　law　must　give　it　no　longer。　　In　the　beginning　of　these　matters；　as　I　take　it；　the　object　was　when　two　powerful　nations　were　at　war　to　allow　the　smaller　fry　of　nations　to　enjoy　peace　and　quiet；　and　to　avoid；　if　possible；　the　general　scuffle。　　Thence　arose　the　position　of　a　neutral。　　But　it　was　clearly　not　fair　that　any　such　nation；　having　proclaimed　its　neutrality；　should；　after　that；　fetch　and　carry　for　either　of　the　combatants　to　the　prejudice　of　the　other。　　Hence　came　the　right　of　search；　in　order　that　unjust　falsehood　might　be　prevented。　　But　the　seas　were　not　then　bridged　with　ships　as　they　are　now　bridged；　and　the　laws　as　written　were；　perhaps；　then　practical　and　capable　of　execution。　　Now　they　are　impracticable　and　not　capable　of　execution。　　It　will　not；　however；　do　for　us　to　ignore　them　if　they　exist；　and　therefore　they　should　be　changed。　　It　is；　I　think；　manifest　that　our　own　pretensions　as　to　the　right　of　search　must　be　modified　after　this。　　And　now　I　trust　I　may　finish　my　book　without　again　naming　Messrs。　Slidell　and　Mason。　The　working　of　the　Senate　bears　little　or　no　analogy　to　that　of　our　House　of　Lords。　　In　the　first　place；　the　Senator's　tenure　there　is　not　hereditary；　nor　is　it　for　life。　　They　are　elected；　and　sit　for　six　years。　　Their　election　is　not　made　by　the　people　of　their　States；　but　by　the　State　legislature。　　The　two　Houses；　for　instance；　of　the　State　of　Massachusetts　meet　together　and　elect　by　their　joint　vote　to　the　vacant　seat　for　their　State。　　It　is　so　arranged　that　an　entirely　new　Senate　is　not　elected　every　sixth　year。　　Instead　of　this　a　third　of　the　number　is　elected　every　second　year。　　It　is　a　common　thing　for　Senators　to　be　re…elected；　and　thus　to　remain　in　the　house　for　twelve　and　eighteen　years。　　In　our　Parliament　the　House　of　Commons　has　greater　political　strength　and　wider　political　action　than　the　House　of　Lords；　but　in　Congress　the　Senate　counts　for　more　than　the　House　of　Representatives　in　general　opinion。　Money　bills　must　originate　in　the　House　of　Representatives；　but　that　is；　I　think；　the　only　special　privilege　attaching　to　the　public　purse　which　the　Lower　House　enjoys　over　the　Upper。　　Amendments　to　such　bills　can　be　moved　in　the　Senate；　and　all　such　bills　must　pass　the　Senate　before　they　become　law。　　I　am　inclined　to　think　that　individual　members　of　the　Senate　work　harder　than　individual　Representatives。　　More　is　expected　of　them；　and　any　prolonged　absence　from　duty　would　be　more　remarked　in　the　Senate　than　in　the　other　House。　　In　our　Parliament　this　is　reversed。　　The　payment　made　to　members　of　the　Senate　is　3000　dollars；　or　600l。；　per　annum；　and　to　a　Representative；　500l。　per　annum。　　To　this　is　added　certain　mileage　allowance　for　traveling　backward　and　forward　between　their　own　State　and　the　Capitol。　　A　Senator；　therefore；　from　California　or　Oregon　has　not　altogether　a　bad　place；　but　the　halcyon　days　of　mileage　allowances　are；　I　believe；　soon　to　be　brought　to　an　end。　　It　is　quite　within　rule　that　the　Senator　of　to…day　should　be　the　Representative　of　to…morrow。　　Mr。　Crittenden；　who　was　Senator　from　Kentucky；　is　now　a　member　of　the　Lower　House　from　an　electoral　district　in　that　State。　　John　Quincy　Adams　went　into　the　House　of　Representatives　after　he　had　been　President　of　the　United　States。　Divisions　in　the　Senate　do　not　take　place　as　in　the　House　of　Representatives。　　The　ayes　and　noes　are　called　for　in　the　same　way；　but　if　a　poll　be　demanded；　the　Clerk　of　the　House　calls　out　the　names　of　the　different　Senators；　and　makes　out　lists　of　the　votes　according　to　the　separate　answers　given　by　the　members。　　The　mode　is　certainly　more　dignified　than　that　pursued　in　the　other　House；　where　during　the　ceremony　of　voting　the　members　look　very　much　like　sheep　being　passed　into　their　pens。　I　heard　two　or　three　debates　in　the　House　of　Representatives；　and　that　one　especially　in　which；　as　I　have　said　before；　a　chapter　was　read　out　of　the　Book　of　Joshua。　　The　manner　in　which　the　Creator's　name　and　the　authority　of　His　Word　was　banded　about　the　house　on　that　occasion　did　not　strike　me　favorably。　　The　question　originally　under　debate　was　the　relative　power　of　the　civil　and　military　authority。　　Congress　had　desired　to　declare　its　ascendency　over　military　matters；　but　the　army　and　the　Executive　generally　had　demurred　to　this；not　with　an　absolute　denial　of　the　rights　of　Congress；　but　with　those　civil　and　almost　silent　generalities　with　which　a　really　existing　power　so　well　knows　how　to　treat　a　nominal　power。　　The　ascendant　wife　seldom　tells　her　husband　in　so　many　words　that　his　opinion　in　the　house　is　to　go　for　nothing；　she　merely　resolves　that　such　shall　be　the　case；　and　acts　accordingly。　　An　observer　could　not　but　perceive　that　in　those　days　Congress　was　taking　upon　itself　the　part；　not　exactly　of　an　obedient　husband；　but　of　a　husband　vainly　attempting　to　assert　his　supremacy。　　〃I　have　got　to　learn；〃　said　one　gentleman　after　another；　rising　indignantly　on　the　floor；　〃that　the　military　authority　of　our　generals　is　above　that　of　this　House。〃　　And　then　one　gentleman　relieved　the　difficulty　of　the　position　by　branching　off　into　an　eloquent　discourse　against　slavery；　and　by　causing　a　chapter　to　be　read　out　of　the　Book　of　Joshua。　On　that　occasion　the　gentleman's　diversion　seemed　to　have　the　effect　of　relieving　the　House　altogether　from　the　embarrassment　of　the　original　question；　but　it　was　becoming　manifest；　day　by　day；　that　Congress　was　losing　its　ground；　and　that　the　army　was　becoming　indifferent　to　its　thunders：　that　the　army　was　doing　so；　and　also　that　ministers　were　doing　so。　　In　the　States；　the　President　and　his　ministers　are　not　in　fact　subject　to　any　parliamentary　responsibility。　　The　President　may　be　impeached；　but　the　member　of　an　opposition　does　not　always　wish　to　have　recourse　to　such　an　extreme　measure　as　impeachment。　　The　ministers　are　not　in　the　houses；　and　cannot　therefore　personally　answer　questions。　　Different　large　subjects；　such　as　foreign　affairs；　financial　affairs；　and　army　matters；　are　referred　to　Standing　Committees　in　both　Houses；　and　these　committees　have　relations　with　the　ministers。　　But　they　have　no　constitutional　power　over　the　ministers；　nor　have　they　the　much　more　valuable　privilege　of　badgering　a　minister　hither　and　thither　by　viva　voce　questions　on　every　point　of　his　administration。　　The　minister　sits　safe　in　his　officesafe　there　for　the　term　of　the　existing　Presidency　if　he　ca