Sales of Arms to French Agents.
STEECIIES
of
HON. CARL SCHURZ,
OF MISSOURI,
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, FEBRUARY 15 AND 20, 1872.
The Senate having under consideration the reso¬
lution of Mr. Suhnkk's in regard to the sales of
arms to French agents—
Hr. SCHURZ said:
Mr. President : The resolution offered
by the Senator from Massachusetts contem¬
plates an investigation of certain facts. Yes¬
terday that investigation seemed to be ex¬
ceedingly popular in this body ; at least every
member of the Senate speaking upon it de¬
clared that he should be delighted to see it go
on. To-day it does not appear quite as popu¬
lar as it was yesterday. At any rate I have
heard it argued by several Senators that this
investigation would rather be a disgrace to the
country. The Senator from Massachusetts,
[Mr. Sumner,] who moved it, I had always
considered a very good American, and I think
his record will bear out that opinion. The
American people seem to share it. But now
he appears suddenly before us in the character
of—what do you think, sir?—of a French
agent, of a mere instrument of the French
legation, put up to a job by somebody for the
benefit of the French Government. Nay, sir,
further, the Senator from New Jersey [Mr.
Frelinghuysen] represents him as one who
intends to incite the Prussian Government to
bring claims for damages against the United
States ; so that it appears the Senator from
Massachusetts is not only a French agent, but
a Prussian agent at the same time. It seems
as if the two belligerents of 1870 were united
in this one body. Have the American people,
who have always considered him a patriot,
so grossly mistaken their man ?
Sir, this is by no means a very extraordin¬
ary spectacle, for you will well remember that
at the commencement of this session, when a
resolution was introduced by the Senator from
Illinois, [Mr. Trumbull,] contemplating cer¬
tain investigations to be made in the various
branches of the civil service at New York and
elsewhere, it was intimated, nay, loudly as¬
serted in the newspapers, that those who de¬
manded that investigation were very doubtful
characters. compared with those whose con¬
duct was to be investigated ; in fact, that such
men as the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr.
Sumner,] the Senator from Illinois, [Mr.
Trumbull,] who is not now in his seat, and
others, including myself, would rather appear
at a disadvantage in comparison with Leet and
Stocking, of general-order notoriety.
Now, sir, is the inquiry proposed by the
Senator from Massachusetts at all proper? Is
there any good reason for it? Senators have
gone over the preamble, point by point, and
although I think it may become rather tedious
to this body, yet I cannot refrain from imitat¬
ing their example. The preamble commences
as follows:
Whereas it appears from a recent cable telegram
that the committee of the French National Assembly
on war contracts has adopted a resolution asking the
United States Government to furnish the result of
inquiry into the conduct of American officials sus¬
pected of participating in the purchase of arms for
the French Government during the war with Ger¬
many.
How has this statement been interpreted by
the Senator from Iowa, [Mr. Harlan] ? He
stands up boldly before us and charges the
Senator from Massachusetts or some other
Senator with having given a promise to a
French agent authorizing him to telegraph
home that a certain inquiry calculated to
benefit the French Government would come
up here at a certain time. I ask the Senate,
is there the least reason before us for such a
supposition? Is there any reason to be found
in the well-known character of the Senator
from Massachusetts? If the Senator from Iowa
thinks he can shape the public sentiment of
the country by such insinuations, I think he
will find himself mistaken.
The fact seems to be that the French Gov¬
ernment has discovered certain transactions
of a questionable nature connected with the
purchases of arms during the late war, and
has certain reasons to suppose that the Gov¬
ernment of the United States has become
aware of practices of a doubtful character
connected with the same thing in this neigh-
2
borhood. The French Government, therefore,
may have expected such an inquiry to be insti¬
tuted by the executive branch of ours. Hence,
it is fair to suppose came this cable telegram.
But where in the world is the foundation for
the innuendo thrown out by the Senator from
Iowa that the Senator from Massachusetts has
himself been instrumental in instigating this
thing? But, as a fact, there the cable dis¬
patch is; and when by the French Govern¬
ment the character of American officials is
called into question, as, according to this dis¬
patch, it appears to be, I ask you, is not that
a subject of serious concern to us? And does
it not most properly figure in the enumeration
of things which render the proposed inquiry
advisable?
Secondly •
Whereas one Squire, agent of Messrs. Remington
& Sons, at New York, in a dispatoh dated at New
York, October 8,1870, addressed to Samuel Reming¬
ton, at Tours, in France, near the Government of
National Defense, uses the following language : "We
have the strongest influences working for us, which
will use all their efforts to succeed."
The Senator from Iowa seemed very much
startled by the fact that the Senator from Mas¬
sachusetts had possession of that document.
Where he obtained it I do not think is a very
important question. The only important thing,
and it seems to me the thing which annoys the
Senator from Iowa, is that the Senator from
Massachusetts has it. The question is, does
the genuineness of that dispatch stand im¬
peached? So far it is not; and now is that
dispatch founded upon something? Is there
anything in it calculated to awaken our atten¬
tion and thus give us a ground for inquiry?
Can anybody doubt the propriety of incorpor¬
ating a statement like this in a preamble of a
resolution of inquiry ? If not, why is the Sen¬
ator from Massachusetts blamed for it?
Thirdly :
Whereas in a letter dated at New York, Decem¬
ber 13, 1870, addressed by Samuel Remington to
Jules Le Cesne, president of the armament com¬
mittee at Tours, in France, the following language
is employed.
I will not read the whole statement again.
It treats of the sale of certain batteries,
and of the manufacture of cartridges in the
Government workshops, the order for which
was given after some difficulty had been
overcome. Sir, is it not eminently proper to
incorporate a statement like this in a preamble
of a resolution of inquiry? When you hear
that the American Government—or, I will
rather say, the ordnance department of our
Government—not only sold arms to certain
men suspected of being agents of one of the
belligerents parties during the great war of
1870, but that the ordnance department even
went so far as to actually manufacture car¬
tridges for sale to such men ; when it is stated
by a gentleman for whose character I think the
Senator from New York [Mr. Conkling] has
already vouched, that after great difficulty the
order was obtained to have those cartridges
manufactured—I ask you, is there not some
reasonable ground for a suspicion in that? Is
not such a statement with perfect propriety
incorporated in an instrument like this reso¬
lution ?
Furthermore :
Whoroas the Secretary of War, under date of
January 19,1872, addressed the following communi¬
cation to the Socretary of State "— %
I will not read this communication at length?
Its contents are simply that he denies having
sold to Remington & Sons arms after the raid;
die of October, while he admits that cartridges
were manufactured at the Government work¬
shops for another purchaser of arms ; and that
he denies also to know anything of strong
influences brought to bear on the War Depart¬
ment, as mentioned in Mr. Squire's dispatch.
Why, gentlemen, here is a document of high
official authority, in which one of the allega¬
tions brought forward in the letter of Mr. Rem-
ington is substantially admitted and confirmed ;
that is, the manufacture of cartridges, although
it is stated that they were not manufactured
for Remington & Sons, but for Mr. Richard¬
son. Is it not proper to bring this forward in
the enumeration of the reasons which render
this investigation advisable?
Furthermore :
Whereas it appears from these several communi¬
cations, not only that arms were sold, but that
ammunition was manufactured in the workshops of
the United States Government and sold to one
Thomas Richardson, the known attorney of Messrs.
Remington & Sons, when the bids of the latter had
been thrown out for the reason that they were the
agents of the French Government.
I see no impropriety in that, except per¬
haps as to the use of the word " known." I
do not know whether the Senator from Massa¬
chusetts put it in for the purpose of conveying
the impression that by the record here he was
known as the attorney of Remington & Sons.
Mr. SUMNER. No; of course not.
Mr. SCHURZ. As I understand, it is a mat¬
ter of general notoriety that Mr. Richardson did
legal business for Messrs. Remington & Sons.
Is there any impropriety in this? It is merely a
recital, a further statement, only shorter and
plainer, of what the Secretary of War actually
admits.
Further;
Whereas it appears from the offioial report of
the Secretary of War that in the year 1870-71 the sale
of ordnance stores reaohed the sum of $10,000,000,
from whioh, according to the report, only a small
sum was retained to meet the expenses of preparing
other stores for sale, while the official report of the
Secretary of the Treasury for the same year acknowl¬
edges the receipt of only $8,286,131 70, showing a dif¬
ference of over one million seven hundred thousand
dollars.
Nobody will deny that, upon the face of it,
this statement has foundation.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I deny that upon the
face of it the statement is correct.
Mr. SCHURZ. Then the Senator from
Vermont denies that on the face of it it is
correct. His denial will go upou record.
I for my part have never thought of
asserting that the apparent discrepancy would
not be susceptible of explanation, for I
cannot imagine that such stupidity would pre¬
vail in any of the departments of the Gov¬
ernment that if anything wrong was there they
would make it appear so glaringly upon the
3
books. I am only endeavoring to show that
the Senator from Massachusetts had some
reasons for mentioning this matter, although
it can be satisfactorily explained. I will
merely add that in one respect, by the explan¬
ations which have been given, my mind has
not been entirely satisfied as to the clearness
of the official statements.
I had this morning a conversation with the
Secretary of the Treasury, who explained to
me the apparent discrepancy between the two
reports for the last fiscal year. I suggested
to him that that was not the only discrepancy,
but that in the fiscal year preceding there was
another, and that the two apparent discrepan¬
cies together amounted to about two million
six hundred thousand dollars. Now I tell
the Senator from Vermont that I expect this
discrepancy will be explained also, but I sug¬
gest that it has not been explained up to the
present moment with sufficient clearness.
The preamble proceeds :
Whereas a comparison of the accounts rendered
by the French Government for moneys expended by
its agents in the purchase of arms from the United
States and the aeeounts rendered by the Government
■of the United States formoneys received in the same
transaction show a large difference, which seems to
have given rise to the suspicion abroad that United
States officials have taken an undue part therein.
It has been asserted that this shows on the
part of the Senator from Massachusetts an
undue familiarity with the affairs of the French
Government. Why, sir, columns upon col¬
umns on that head have appeared in the
French newspapers; reports upon reports have
been made upon it; and anybody familiar with
contemporaneous history and reading the jour¬
nals of foreign countries could acquaint him¬
self with the facts in the case with great facility.
There is no great magic, no hocus-pocus about
this. Anybody who wanted to understand it
•could understand it, and certainly the Senator
from Massachusetts, if he wanted to know it,
was able to acquire that knowledge. Nobody
will deny that if in the public press such state¬
ments have appeared it is perfectly proper to
enumerate the fact among the reasons for this
investigation.
Again:
Whereas the good name of the American Gov¬
ernment seems so be seriouslyeompromised by these
incidents, and a just regard to national honor, as
well as to the interests of the Treasury, req uire that
they should not be allowed to pass without the most
thorough inquiry.
And here I touch the point which was so
eloquently commented upon by the Senator
from New Jersey. Certainly, to see the Amer¬
ican name compromised would be a very pain¬
ful thing to every patriotic man, but I think in
the course of my remarks I shall be able to
show that if suspicion has been thrown upon
the American name, it is not by those who
denounce these transactions, but by those who
directly or indirectly participated in them ;
and when there appears any reason to fear
that the American name is thus compromised,
I think every good citizen will endeavor at the
very first opportunity either to clear the Amer¬
ican name of all imputations, or to expose and
punish those who compromised it. I do not
think that wo can protect the honor of tho
American name, keep untarnished the bright¬
ness of the American escutcheon, by supinely
folding our hands when we see facts cropping
out calculated to throw suspicion upon men
officially connected with our' Government.
Nor has the Senator from Massachusetts ever
been known to deal lightly with the honor of
tho American name.
Now comes the resolution, and I think this,
with all its particular points, will form a special
part of this debate. As far as I can see, the
resolution of the Senator from Massachusetts,
the preamble included, was in the main con¬
ceived in a proper spirit and properly put.
He declared time and again that he did not
bring forward positive accusations, but that
he merely suggested suspicions—suspicions
grave enough to demand an inquiry. If any
positive allegations have been made, they were
made on the other side, for we heard the Sen¬
ator from Iowa and several other Senators
open and close their speeches with the em¬
phatic remark that they were perfectly satisfied
that there was absolutely nothing in the facts
stated in the preamble ; that it was a blank
cartridge ; that there was no ground for any
suspicion at all; that every man in any way
connected with the Government of the United
States stood perfectly clear. I say, therefore,
that if there was any effort to prejudge this
case by allegations, it was made on the other
side ; a complete acquittal was to precede the
investigation.
This will justify a review of the reasons for
the acquittal. Let us see whether they are
entirely conclusive.
The subject of this inquiry is to be certain
sales of arms. Sales of arms, as such, are si
perfectly proper proceeding under certain
restrictions. They are authorized by law.
When the arsenals of the Government are
filled to surfeit, and when there is a good
opportunity to sell, there is good reason
why we should consider it in order to dis¬
pose of our superfluous material for a fair
consideration. If there is anything in any
manner calculated to make the sales of arms
improper it may consist in the circumstances
under which those sales are made, or the
manner in which they are conducted.
What were the circumstances under which in
this instance those sales were made? There
was a great war going in Europe ; two of the
greatest nations of modern history met one
another on the battle-field ; the fate of the Old
World seemed to tremble ift the scale; and
this great Government of ours, being a friend
of both these nations, resolved to maintain in
that struggle a strict neutrality. Certainly
there was a tempting opportunity for selling
our surplus arms. But it may be asked whether
under such circumstances the sale of arms was
not surrounded by questions of extraordinary
delicacy. It seems to me there were consider¬
ations of great importance suggesting them¬
selves before the sale of arms under such cir¬
cumstances was commenced ; especial care,
4
especial circumspection, were evidently re¬
quired. The Senator from Iowa, if I under¬
stood him correctly—and I am very sorry not
to see him in his seat now, for I may misinter¬
pret what he said—advanced here a new and
rather startling principle of international law
as to the maintenance of a country's neutrality.
He said one belligerent Power needing those
arms, and the other not needing them, it would
have been rather a breach of neutrality if we
had stopped the sales, thus not furnishing the
former with what it needed, and that thus a
Government may violate its neutrality by not
selling material of war. I regret the Senator
from Iowa is'not present, so that, if I am stat¬
ing him erroneously, he might correct me, for
the proposition I thought I heard him advance
was quite extraordinary; I might say some¬
what startling.
I merely desire to observe that I certainly
cannot subscribe to that entirely novel doc¬
trine. It appears from the record that the
Government of the United States at that time
laid down for itself a very safe rule of action.
The Senator from Iowa called already our
attention to certain proceedings which passed
between the Prussian legation and the War
Department. He said that the Prussian min¬
ister had requested the Secretary of War to
suspend the sales of arms for a little while so
that Prussian agents also might have an oppor¬
tunity to bid. The Secretary of War having
communicated to me the same statement at
the time, or a short time after, I inquired of
the Prussian legation whether this was actu¬
ally the case ; and the information I received
was this: that indeed they had requested the
Secretary of War to suspend the sales of arms
for a certain time, but not with a view to buy
for the use of the Prussian Government, which
had arms enough, but in some way, by advanc¬
ing money upon them, to prevent the sale of
those arms to the French. This, as I under¬
stand, was to be done by Boker, of New York.
I was further informed that the legation was
instructed by the Prussian Government not
to do this. Such was the story as I received
it. As to the rules of international law as
they now stand, it was admitted by our own
authorities that they do not permit the sale
of arms by one Government to a nation in a
state of belligerency against another. This is
easily proven.
The Secretaryof War transmits to Congress
in his report of the 24th of January a letter of
the chief of ordnance, in which the following
statement occurs:
"About half an Siour before the time fixed for
opening the bids for the purchase of Springfield and
Enfield muskets, in October, 1870,1 was shown a dis¬
patch from a member of the house of E. Remington
& Sons, stating that they were agents of the French
Government, and authorized to purchase arms for
it. I postponed opening the bids, and immediately
showed the dispatch to you, and you promptly
directed me to suspend the sale, and not to enter¬
tain any bids from E. Remington & Sons for arms,
Ac."
This, sir, you will admit, was very proper.
The principle, the rule of action laid down by
our Government for itself, seemed to be sim-
ly this: that no arms should be sold to a
nown agent of one of the belligerent Powers ;
in other words, that nothing should be done
by the Government of the United States by
which with its knowledge one of the belliger¬
ent parties should be aided to the detriment
of the other. If this rule of action was estab¬
lished, then no arms could have been sold by
the Government when their going at once into
the hands of either belligerent could be fore¬
seen with a reasonable degree of certainty.
The Government had to use more than or¬
dinary circumspection in this regard. The
Government had to be careful not only not to
sell to men whom they knew to be agents of
either one or the other of the belligerent parties,
but the Government had to satisfy themselves
with all the means of information within reach
that persons applying for arms were not the
agents of either one or the other of the belli¬
gerent parties. If the Government did not
do that; if arms were sold to individuals who
could reasonably be presumed to transfer
those arms at once to one of the belligerent
parties, it is as clear as sunlight that then this
rule of action laid down was in great danger
of sinking to the level of a solemn mockery.
Now, sir, it is asserted that no arms were
sold to anybody who appeared as an agent of
one of the belligerent parties. Let us look at
the facts. At that time I assert that the pre¬
sumption was rather strong that every man
approaching the Government to buy large lots
of arms did it with a view to dispose of those
arms to one of the belligerent parties. Sup¬
pose, sir, you had been the chief of ordnance.
After the breaking out of the French-German
war, a person had come to you asking for
fifty thousand muskets, or, say, one hundred
batteries of artillery. For what purpose did
he want that large amount of arms? This
question would have occurred to you. He did
not ask for fifty thousand muskets to scare
away the blackbirds ; he did not ask for one
hundred batteries of artillery to kill geese on
a pond ; not for his own private use and pleas¬
ure ; he had an opportunity in view for dis¬
posing at once of this enormous material.. This
might have been reasonably suspected. I say,
therefore, that under such circumstances a bid
for very large quantities of arms was in its very
nature suspicious, and the Government had
good reason to be more than ordinarily cir¬
cumspect in the disposition made of ordnance
stores.
It must also have occurred to you that pre¬
vious to a certain date the sales of ordnance
stores were very light. Look at the report.
You will find there are some thousands of
pounds of gunpowder sold now and then ; there
are some pairs of harness, some pig brass, some
cast iron, here and there some Spencer car¬
tridges, small lots of rifles, and so on. Suddenly
in October, 1870, Remington & Sons come to
buy 50,000 Springfield rifled muskets, 14,757
Remington carbines, 19,434 Spencer car¬
tridges, 17,517,822 Spencer cartridges, and
so on. It was then certain that something
extraordinary had taken place in the market..
5
The suspicion suggested itself that one of the
belligerents was a bidder and buyer in that
market. Now, I am very far from asserting
that the ordnance department, when it sold
these fifty thousand Springfield muskets and
those numbers of thousands of carbines, was
at that time aware that Mr. .Remington was the
paid agent of the French Government. The
Secretary of War says that he did not know
it, and I certainly presume he did not. But
immediately afterward Mr. Remington dis¬
closed himself as the agent of the French Gov¬
ernment. He telegraphed to them, making a
bid for a new lot of arms, that he acted as the
agent of France.
Mr. CONKLING. The chief of ordnance
says that he was shown a dispatch disclosing
it, not that the dispatch was sent to him.
Mr. SCHURZ. The Senator is right. He
was shown a dispatch. At any rate it was
ascertained on very good authority immedi¬
ately afterward that Remington & Sons were
the agents of the French Government, and
then,'as is stated in the report, their bids were
thrown out. This was correct. But the sales
continued—sales to a tremendous amount.
You will find on page 18 of this report :
" Oaleb Huse, 13,000 Enfield muskets ; Caleb Huse,
2,600,000 musket cartridges; H. Boker & Co., 50,000
Springfield muskets; Schuyler, Hartley & Graham,
2,500 Gallagher's carbines ; Schuyler, Hartley & Gra¬
ham, 2,492 Warner's carbines: Schuyler, Hartley and
Grah am, 925,372 Warner's cartridges ; Schuyler, Hart¬
ley & Graham, 100,000 Springfield muskets; Austin
Baldwin & Co., 40,000 Springfield muskets,1858; Aus¬
tin Baldwin & Co., 110,000 Springfield muskets, C. &
R. ; Austin Baldwin & Co., 25,000,000 musket car¬
tridges."
Of course the new bidders who now came,
warned by the example of Remington, would not
come to the Government and tell them, " We
are French agents," knowing that it would be
dangerous to the prospect of their operations.
The new bidders, of course, would be very
careful; but I ask you again, was not there
reasonable ground for suspicion? Had not
the ordnance department strong reason to
take surrounding circumstances into consider¬
ation, and to use more than ordinary circum¬
spection in the case? Was not the fact.already
apparent that cargo after cargo of arms was
being shipped to France week after week?
Was the ordnance department justified if it
violently closed its eyes to see nothing of what
was going on? Was not the presumption that
those men bought these arms, not for the pur¬
pose of transferring them to one of the bel¬
ligerents, but for other uses, a most vio¬
lent presumption? And yet this was exactly
the presumption which was acted upon. It
turned out afterward that all of those who
bought these large lots of arms did act as the
agent of one of the belligerents in Bome way,
and that the arms they had bought were at once
shipped to France. At any rate, it will turn out
that all the large lots ofarms sold went that way.
It may, however, interest Senators also to learn
that most of those who bought arms after
Remington & Sons' bids were thrown out,
turned out afterward virtually to be sub-agents
for Remington & Sons, for it is a very curious
fact, that comparing French accounts with this
report, in point of price, a great many of these
lots tally exactly, that is to say, the prices
paid by the French Government agree with the
prices received here, and it must be borne in
mind that all these lots of arms went through
the hands of Remington, who was the general
authorized agent of France ; he picked up these
lots here and shipped them there, and while
he did so on his own account, I repeat it
turns out that, in point of price per piece, the
prices paid here and the prices charged there
tallied almost exactly as regards most of the
lots sold under other names. There is an
eminent probability that the relations existing
between these gentlemen and Remington were
of an exceedingly intimate nature, so that, in
point of fact, it will be very difficult to tell one
from the other. But, sir, it seems also that
Mr. Remington himself was the business agent
of some of these very gentlemen, conducting
their transactions for them with the ordnance
department. I will refer to that letter from
Mr. Remington which was produced here yes¬
terday by the Senator from Massachusetts.
That letter is addressed to Jules Le Cesne.
esq., president of 'the commission of armament
of France:
" New York, December 13,1870.
" Sir: I have the honor to inform you that X have
received your telegrams of the 10th and 11th, order¬
ing the number of batteries to beredueed in number
to fifty, and informing me of instructions to the
oonsui regarding the last credit to him of 3,000,000
francs. Although at the time of the receipt of the
telegram I"—
Mark you, "I," Remington—
" had bought the whole number, (one hundred,) and
had paid the advance required, $200,000, the Govern¬
ment very willingly reduced the number to fifty."
Where do these fifty batteries appear ? Look
over the report of the ordnance department
and you search in vain for the name of Rem¬
ington, but these fifty batteries do appear on
the nineteenth page of that report under the
name of Austin Baldwin; & Co. So we have
here Mr. Remington, who says, "I got the
Government to reduce the number of batteries
from one hundred to fifty "I made the first
payment of $200,000 these being the same
batteries, for there are no others, which ap¬
pear here under the name of Austin Baldwin
& Co. We go on with this letter, and we find
Mr. Remington in a confidence with the chief
of ordnance which is perfectly astounding. He
says :
"The chief of ordnance thinks it may take twenty
to thirty days before they all can be brought in.
Only about five thousand with cartridges can be
shipped now." * * * * * * *
" The chief of ordnance estimates the cost of the
arms, including boxing and expense of freight to
bring them to New York, at $20 60 currency. This
price X have agreed to pay, and have made the
necessary deposits."
This was dated at New York December 13,
1870, and, mark you, Remington had discov¬
ered himself as the French agent before the
18th of October of that year. And yet the
same man whose bid had for that reason been
rejected, and who was therefore under the ban
of the department, the same man says here
6
to the commission of armament in Prance, "I
have made this arrangement with the chief of
ordnance," "I have bought these arms," and
"I have made these payments."
Now, I suppose, this appearing from Mr.
Remington's own letter, it cannot be regarded
as a mere empty boast for the purpose of get¬
ting money out of the French Government, for
the Senator from New York told us yesterday
that he considered Mr. Remington a perfectly
honorable man.
Mr. CONKLING. I made no such declara¬
tion, be my opinion as it may. I said that Mr.
Remington was my neighbor; that I had
known him long, and his father before him ;
and I added that he did not deserve, I thought,
to be spoken of as he had been by the Senator
from Massachusetts. I said also that for a long
time and on a large scale he had been a manu¬
facturer of and dealer in arms, and was known
in that character to the Government. This is,
I think, the substance of my statement. I did
not employ the terms the Senator ascribes to
me, or go into the particulars he mentions. I
do not say that all he supposes I said might
not fitly be said.
Mr. SCHURZ. The Senator says he might
indorse him if he had occasion.
Mr. CONKLING. I say I do not affirm
or deny that I might. I say nothing on that
subject now.
Mr. SCHURZ. I am going to refer to
circumstances to show what occasion did
require it.
1 am most happy to hear the Senator from
New York give Mr. Remington so high a
character, for I was just going to observe
that being a gentleman of that description,
certainly his word cannot be doubted. When
he says "I bought these arms" which after¬
ward figured under the name of Austin Bald¬
win & Co., then Mr. Remington must un¬
doubtedly be believed. When he afterward
said "I had these cartridges made," undoubt¬
edly Mr. Remington, the agent of Prance, had
these cartridges made.
Mr. CONKLING. The Senator did allege
just now, and I took it down, that notwith¬
standing the Secretary of War, reporting the
words of his bureau officer, says that after the
middle of October he did not accept and would
not have entertained a bid from Mr. Reming¬
ton—in spite of that fact, in December after¬
ward this same man, said the Senator, writes
"I purchased," "I did thus and so." Now
the Senator will see that his allegation is friv¬
olous, it is pointless, unless he means, as evi¬
dently he does, to confront the Secretary of
War and the chief of ordnance with the letter
of Remington. Therefore I ask him whether
he means that when Remington writes in De¬
cember "I have purchased so and so" he
understands that to amount to a contradiction
of anybody, bureau officer or otherwise ; and
whether on the contrary that letter is not
strictly and fully true if Remington purchased
not only through one middle man, but through
two, three, four intermediate purchasers and
holders?
Mr. SCHURZ. In the first place, if the
Senator from New York alleges that the chief
of ordnance asserts not to have had any trans¬
actions with Remington after he had been dis¬
covered to be a French agent, he states some¬
thing that is not in accordance with the rec¬
ord, for the chief of ordnance simply says, "I
postponed opening the bids, and immediately
showed the dispatch to you, and you promptly
directed me to suspend the sale arid not to
entertain any bidsfrora E. Remington & Sons."
But he does not say that subsequently he had
no transactions with him. The Secretary of
War says that "the Messrs. Remington & Sons
did not buy any arms or ammunitions from
this Department after about the middle of
October; nor would any bid from Ihem for
such articles have been entertained by the
United States subsequent to that date." So
it appears that the language of the chief of
ordnance as well as of the Secretary of War
is by no means as broad as the Senator from
New York seems inclined to make it.
Now, let this letter stand here, such as it is,
and I shall not say another word about it except
a few remarks I shall make on another case
that has some bearing on this question. One of
the most curious features of this proceeding
was that with which one Thomas Richard¬
son, whose name has already been mentioned
in this debate, was connected. Mr. Thomas
Richardson, I suppose it is generally under¬
stood, is a lajvyer residing in Ilion.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I never heard of him
until yesterday.
Mr. SCHURZ. That at least is common
report. He is said to have been the attorney
of Messrs. Remington & Sons. Mr. Thomas
Richardson, a lawyer from Ilion, New York,
the home of Remington, comes before the
ordnance department, or some other person
comes in his name, and asks the chief of ord¬
nance to sell him forty thousand stand of
breech-loaders. What a bellicose lawyer!
Here we do not behold a great manufacturer or
trader in arms, whose regular business it was
to buy and sell such articles from one party
to another. Here comes a little country law¬
yer asking for forty thousand breech-loading
muskets and four hundred rounds apiece. For
what purpose does he want this great arma¬
ment? Does he mean to set his clients to
fighting? Does he want, perhaps, to storm a
court-house or to bombard the heads of the
judges on the bench with bullets instead of
arguments? What has this lawyer to do in the
arms business? Why, it might reasonably be
supposed that when a little country attorney
appears before a chief of ordnance arid asks
for forty thousand Springfield muskets the
suspicion was justified—it could scarcely be
avoided—that he was acting for some other
person, whom he was to cover with his name.
But it seems that Richardson did not trans¬
act his business with the ordnance department
himself—and here I claim the attention of the
Senator from New York again, for he may
possibly contradict me in my statement. I
say it appears that Richardson did not transact
his business with the ordnance department,
in person. In fact it is somewhat doubtful
whether Mr. Thomas Richardson appeared in
Washington about that time at all. But Mr.
Thomas Richardson did buy that large lot of
muskets from the United States, and accord¬
ing to the report of the Secretary of War it
was for Mr. Thomas Richardson that the car¬
tridges were manufactured. Here, by the way,
I might ask a question. That a sale of arms
under the statute of 1868 is legal, nobody
doubts. Here is that statute :
" Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Repre¬
sentatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled, That the Seoretary of War be, and he is
hereby, authorized and directed to cause to be sold,
after offer at public sale on thirty days' notice, in
such manner and at such times and places, at publio
or private sale, as he may deem most advantageous to
the public interest, the old oannon, arms, and other
ordnance stores now in possession of the War De¬
partment which are damaged or otherwise unsuit¬
able for the United States military service, or for the
militia of the United States, and to cause the net
proceeds of such sales, after paying all proper ex¬
penses of sale and transportation to the place of
sale, to be deposited in the Treasury of the United
States."
No doubt under this statute the chief of ord¬
nance had perfect authority to sell such arms
as fell under its provisions ; but you will notice
how carefully this statute is drawn, how it is
guarded, and how the quality of arms is desig¬
nated that may be sold—no arms that might
be suitable for the service of the United States;
and certainly this statute does not authorize
the War Department to manufacture anything
for sale. It bas been said that it was an old
custom when guns were sold to sell ammunition
with them. If it was an old custom, not only
to sell old ammunition on hand, but to manu¬
facture new ammunition for sale, I would like
to have it shown to me. Certainly, if we may
believe Mr. Remington, who is an honorable
man, it took a great effort to induce the ord¬
nance department to manufacture these car¬
tridges. Let us see what he has to say about
that:
"Regarding the purchase of Springfields, (trans¬
formed.) Allen'ssystem, I am sorry to say the greatest
number we may hope to get will not, I fear, exceed
forty thousand. The Government has never made
but about seventy-five thousand all told, and forty
thousand is the greatest number they think it pru¬
dent to spare. I may be able to procure, depending
upon an exchange of our arms"—
Which certainly did not mean Richardson,
but Remington, for it is not to be presumed
the little lawyer of Ilion was in possession of
an arsenal !—
"at some future time, for the number of breech-
loading Springfields over and above forty thousand
they are willing to let go now.
"This question of an exchange, with the very
friendly feeling I find existing to aid France, I hope
to be able to procure more. Cartridges for these forty
thousand wiil in a great measure require to be made,
as the Government have but about three million in
band. But the Government has consented to allow
the requisite number, four hundred for each gun, to
be made, and the cartridge-works have had orders,
given yesterday"—
You will notice how very intimate Mr. Rem¬
ington was with the movements of the ord¬
nance department; he certainly could not
have been very far away from it—
"given yesterday to increase production to the
full oapaoity of works. This question of making
the cartridges at the Government works was a diffi¬
cult ono to get over ; but it is done. The prioo the
Govornmont will charge," 4c.
And now here it appears again that not
Richardson, not the bellicose lawyer, but that
Remington was the man who moved in this
matter; for Remington says of himself, "I
had those cartridges made," " I made the de¬
posits," "I was told by the chief of ordnance,"
and so on. It seems to me that the proof of
Remington's agency in these things is not far
from being conclusive, for as the Senator from
New Yrork has already stated, he might take
occasion to say that Remington is an honorable
man. But I ask you, after all this, even if
Remington conducted the purchases through
third parties, was not there such abundant rea¬
son for suspecting him of being at the bottom
of the whole of it, and he being known as the
Freuch agent, that it required an extraordinary
amount of short-sightedness not to see it?
And here comes the chief of ordnance
and says, "Oh, we would not sell to Reming¬
ton, God forbid! but Thomas Richardson
was an innocent man," while it appears from
Remington's own letter that Mr. Remington
was Mr. Thomas Richardson. Well, sir, lam
forced to the conclusion that in these transac¬
tions there appears a degree of blindness com¬
pared with which the blindness of bats and
moles is clairvoyance, or that the whole pro¬
ceeding was a piece of transparent jugglery.
It was either one or the other ; but whether
it was one or the other, it is certainly worth
while for the Congress of the United States to
investigate.
Mr. Remington happened to get into some
difficulties with the French Government, diffi¬
culties growing out of the purchases of arms
through his agency from the Government of
the United States. The French Government,
it appears, had become suspicious concerning
some of his dealings, and retained certain
sum's of money due him on a lot of arms fur¬
nished by him previous to his transactions with
our ordnance department. Mr. Remington
went to France to have these difficulties set¬
tled and to obtain his money. His character
seems to have been called in question, and
before going he was armed with a letter of
recommendation certifying to his character and
standing as a gentleman and a business man:
and unless I am very greatly misinformed
that recommendation bore the name of the
honorable Senator from New York, also the
name of General Dyer, chief of ordnance,
and was generally indorsed by William W.
Belknap, Secretary of War of the United
States.
Mr. CONKLING. I understand the Sen¬
ator to say that he is informed that Mr. Rem¬
ington carried a letter from the Secretary of
War indorsed by me among others. I think
that can hardly be, as I never saw such a let¬
ter as he speaks of. To be explicit, however,
and possibly to aid the honorable Senator in
his present laudable endeavors, I will tell him
something more. Some time ago Mr. Reming-
8
ton came to me with a number of letters, I
think one from Mr. John T. Hoffman, the
Governor of the State of New York, and sev¬
eral from other well known citizens of both
political parties, which were to the effect
that he was a highly respectable man in
the general and business community. He
related to me that some citizen or emissary
of France had asserted in France, as I now
remember it, that he, Mr. Remington, and
I think all the members of his house, were
worse than indifferent people ; in short, that
they were greatly wanting in respectability ;
that they had no character in their own
country ; and he asked me to write him such
a note as I would, that he might show where
ever his character should be called in question.
I did write, not an indorsement upon the letter
of anybody else, but a note of my own. It
was a statement in general terms of this kind :
that having been informed by him that his
commercial and personal character had been
questioned, and he having asked me to say
whether his reputation deserved to be so ques¬
tioned, I could not hesitate—I think now I
employ the words I did in the letter—I could
not hesitate to say for him and for all his
father's sons that commercially and person¬
ally, as far as I had ever known, their char¬
acter was good and their standing strong
and enviable in the community in which they
lived.
I think I have given the Senator the whole
of the note which I wrote; but I saw no note
from General Belknap. I ought to add, how¬
ever, as I am furnishing the Senator informa¬
tion, one thing more if he will indulge me.
Mr. SCHURZ. Certainly.
Mr. CONKLING. And that is this: Mr.
Remington complained bitterly that his own
Government withheld from him and from its
citizens what every Government in the world
that he had visited, and he had visited nearly
all the Christian Governments, was in the
habit of extending to their citizens or subjects ;
and he illustrated to me in a very interesting
manner what he said. I would repeat his
illustration here if I were not encroaching upon
the time of the Senator. He told me that the
same favors which he had seen himself granted
in England to British subjects, which had been
granted in England to men not even British
subjects, were refused by his Government to
him, and that he had in his transactions in arms
been impeded, questioned, baffled by his Gov¬
ernment as no citizens of any Government he
had ever visited would be ; that now when his
character was questioned abroad he had ap¬
plied in vain to officials of the United States
to make statements of facts which their records
showed, and had been refused upon the ground
that they abstained from all interference in
such cases, and did not feel at liberty to cer¬
tify, even when they believed it, the good char¬
acter of our citizens.
I think he told me—and having said this I
shall relieve the Senator—that all he had been
able to procure from any Department of the
Government of the United States (very likely
and having been questioned as to his business
and character, and having obtained from the
military department of his Government a cer¬
tificate that his dealings with it had been hon¬
est, the Senator seemed to think that was
remarkable in view of his supposition that
Mr. Remington wished to introduce himself to
good or fashionable society abroad.
Mr. SCHURZ. Not at all.
Mr. CONKLING. It would have been in
the worst of taste, I admit, for Mr. Reming¬
ton, if that had been his object, to pass by my
honorable friend, for example, and go to the
chief of ordnance for certificates to put him
in fashionable society abroad ; but I beg to
assure him, knowing Mr. Remington, that that
was no part of his mission ; he went with no
aspiration like that. „
Mr. SCHURZ. I thank the Senator from
New York for what he says. I am so far from
believing that Mr. Remington desired to in¬
troduce himself into fashionable society that
I am almost sure he desired those letters to
ho had reference to the communication to
which the Senator has referred coming from
the Secretary of War) was some certified tran¬
script of the records of Department or bu¬
reau with a statement (I think he told me,
rather meager) that he had furnished large
quantities of arms to our Government during
its own struggle, and that in his transactions
he had been found upright. I think he told
me that from some Departments he received
such a statement, and doubtless that is the
statement to which the honorable Senator
refers
Mr. SCHURZ. Now, it will be admitted
that the statement of the Senator from New
York virtually confirms everything I have
said. But I desire to observe that when a
citizen of the United States goes abroad and
wants to introduce himself there in society,
by producing a certificate as to his character,
so as to be received with confidence and cor¬
diality, it would be considered somewhat sin¬
gular for him to go to the chief of ordnance
for a letter of recommendation. I think he
would rather approach the Secretary of State,
those authorities who conduct the diplomatic
intercourse of Governments, and stand in
continual contact with official society abroad,
instead of the War Department and the chief
of ordnance.
Mr. CONKLING. Did the honorable Sen¬
ator understand me to report Mr. Remington
as applying for letters of introduction to intro¬
duce him to good society abroad?
Mr. SCHURZ. No, sir. I understood the
Senator from New York to say that Mr. Rem¬
ington, having been maligned abroad, desired
to have some certificate as to his character
and standing, and that he obtained that cer¬
tificate as an act of friendship from the Sen¬
ator from New York, not to speak of the
indorsement given him by the chief of ord¬
nance and the Secretary of War. That is what
I understood him to say.
Mr. CONKLING. The objectof my inquiry
was this: Mr. Remington being an arms-dealer,
9
aid him in the settlement of his own accounts
with the French Government ; his integrity
having been questioned there, right there a
semi-official certificate coming from the chief
of ordnance of the United States, and from
the Secretary of War of the United States, was
exceedingly welcome and useful to him,
That is what I should have said, had not the
Senator from New York said it for me. But
it is very questionable whether it was proper
for the chief of ordnance and the Secretary
of War to give such a certificate to Mr. Rem¬
ington so as to introduce him to the confidence
of the French Government, and to aid him in
the settlement of his transactions with that
Government, after Mr. Remington, as we are
told, had been, so to speak, turned out of the
War Department as a French agent and his
bids had been rejected for that reason, as a
trade this Government could not entertain.
What I mean to say is this
Mr. CONKLING. I shall not interrupt the
Senator ; but will simply suggest that he of
course does not understand that these letters
were furnished to Mr. Remington while the
war was going on or this transaction. It was
now recently; since snow fell this winter, I
think ; certainly quite recently.
Mr. SCHURZ. Certainly; I am well ac¬
quainted with the case, and the Senator and
myself do not differ on that point. It was
after the trial of Place had taken place. It
was when Mr. Remington, as the agent of the
French Go vern ment, had got into difficulty with
the French authorities about his transactions
that these letters were furnished him ; and it
is for this very reason that I say it was of
most questionable propriety that documents
on their face official, bearing official signa¬
tures, should appear on such an occasion.
Certainly I would not find fault with the
Senator from New York for giving him
his letter as an act of friendship ; but when
I see the names of American officials ap¬
pear in such transactions in France, I would
suggest to the honorable Senator from
New Jersey, whom I do not see in his seat
now, that the American name may in that way
indeed be somewhat compromised.
Well, after all this, I believe the Senator
from Iowa will no longer assert that there is
not at least a ground of suspicion indicating
that there were transactions between this Gov¬
ernment and persons who might reasonably
have been presumed to be agents of one of the
belligerent Powers.
Now, as to the money part of the transac¬
tion. There were certain sums paid by France
for arms which appear in their newspapers
and in their official and semi-official docu¬
ments. If we may believe them, the whole
sum of money expended by France through
Remington for arms bought of the United
States amounted to about fifty-four million
francs. On the other hand, as is stated by the
Secretary of War, the whole sum received by
him amounts to not quite ten million dollars.
The aggregate sum paid by the French Govern¬
ment does not appear in a quite definite shape.
It is merely put at about fifty-four million
francs, which would make in gold $11,000,0.00 ;
in currency about fourteen million dollars.
There would then be a discrepancy of about
four million dollars between the money paid
on one and received on the other side. I do
not presume to speak with any definiteness
upon that point. I will not vouch for tho abso¬
lute correctness of the aggregate figures given
in France, but it is very probable that the
whole amount really expended by the French
Government, in these purchases through Rem¬
ington, is not very far from fifty-four million
francs. We know one thing by the documents
that have been published in the newspapers,
and that is that up to the 23d day of Decem¬
ber, 1870, when the moneys expended for
American arms ceased to pass through the
hands of the consul general, the French Gov¬
ernment expended $6,092.173, and that for
the same lots of arms as identified the money
received by the United States was $5,124,953.
There is a discrepancy of $847,000.
We know also that all the purchases which
were made of the Government of the United
States were on the part of France made through
Remington. We know further from French
official reports that Mr. Remington was author¬
ized to charge the French Government a com¬
mission at first of five per cent., which finally,
after it turned out that the sales were very
large, was reduced to two and a half per cent. ;
so that taking the basis of fifty-four million
francs or fourteen million dollars, Mr. Reming¬
ton's commission might have been from three
hundred to three hundred and fifty thousand
dollars. That there is a very large discrepancy
between the money paid by the French Gov¬
ernment and the money received by theUnited
States Government and Remington's commis¬
sions seems obvious. It has been suggested that
that money was pocketed by intermediate
parties. That would at first sight seem very
plausible ; but I have already alluded to the
curious fact that taking the accounts of those
intermediate parties it turns out that in nearly
every case the prices received here, as to each
item, corresponds almost exactly with the
prices paid by the French Government. So it
would seem, as far as the prices of the goods
are concerned, that no money fell into the
pockets of those intermediate parties—a very
curious circumstance ; and certainly it cannot
be presumed that Mr. Remington could have
pocketed it, soiling his hands with illegitimate
gain, indorsed as his integrity is by so many
great authorities. Nay, it may be presumed
that such sums of money as those usually do
not remain in the hands of one perâon, but
are to some extent distributed. If I were
asked what I believe as to where these sums
of money have gone, I would very candidly
tell the Senate, 1 do not know. Here we are
moving on dark ground, which is to bo ex¬
plored. Neither do I think that we ever com¬
menced an investigation of such things where
we were able distinctly to say ' ' there is the man
who has the money." Were we able to say
that, investigation would be unnecessary. The
10
circumstance that we do not know what has
become of those sums, is one of the reasons
why the investigation is demanded.
Well, sir, after all this was the Senator
from Iowa right in tauntingly asking the ques¬
tion, is this any concern of the American peo¬
ple? Why, sir, is not everything that affects
the honor and standing and reputation of any
American official, even if it only distantly
affected, a matter that must most surely con¬
cern the American people? We have heard
here in these dispatches of " strong influences "
being brought to bear. The idea has been
ridiculed. It has been represented as the mere
boastful expression of an agent who wanted to
make himself important. Well, sir, if such
statements stood entirely alone, if there were
no ather circumstances suspiciously connected
with them, then I readily admit it might be
put out of the way as irrelevant. Bnt when
there is reason to believe that money has been
spilled in a mysterious way, and when there is
talk of " strong influences " having been used,
of difficulties having been overcome, the idea
naturally suggests itself that the strong influ¬
ences may possibly have something to do with
that money. I am far from asserting that they
had ; but I say they may have had, and the sus¬
picion has been expressed that they did have.
That suspicion has grown up not only at home ;
it has shown itself abroad. And I think it is
the bounden duty of every citizen of the United
States who values the standing of the Govern¬
ment and the honor of his country to fathom
the subject to the bottom. Nay, sir, here is a
man implicated, Mr. Remington, who is to a
certain extent accredited with the French Gov¬
ernment, by our chief of ordnance and our
Secretary of War over their official signatures.
Tell me, does notour Government to a certain
extent appear implicated in his case? I will
not say that it was so implicated by the author¬
ity of the President, for I am confident it was
not; nor by order of the Secretary of State,
who conducts our international intercourse.
But if it was done merely by an act of indis¬
cretion on the part of other high officials of
the Government, yet after all it was done ;
and is not this a matter of grave importance?
It will not do for vts to close our eyes to these
occurrences, for nobody else does. It is im¬
possible to conceal these things. It is unworthy
of a great Government to attempt to cover up
what the whole world has already learned from
the proceedings in French courts and in the
French National Assembly.
Something has been said here of our de¬
nouncing the Government of the United States
to the world abroad. Why, gentlemen, are
we revealing any secret here? Do not in¬
dulge in such delusions. All Europe knows
already what we are speaking about. Do you
think you can by putting your heads in the
sand, like the ostrich, make all the world be¬
lieve that what is known abroad is a secret
here? By affecting to treat it as a secret, can
you make it secret? Is that taking care of the
honor of the Government? Ignoring charges
is not refuting them. We have to show in
the face of the world that if we cannot stop
corrupt practices we can at least ferret them
out in order to correct them. If this country
is compromised, it is not done by those who
denounce the offense, but by those who per¬
petrated it. If any wrong has been done, we
cannot make it good by trying to conceal it
when it is known to the world, but by boldly
expressing our disapproval we can right our
position before mankind.
A closing word, sir. A year ago I had a
very peculiar interest in this case. When the
war between France and Germany was raging,
and when the news went abroad that our Gov¬
ernment was furnishing arms to France, a great
commotion sprang up among American citi¬
zens of German nativity. When first the great
sales, in October, were made, protests were
brought before the Government, strong repre¬
sentations were made to the President him¬
self, and I read at that time a statement in
the newspapers that the sales were suspended.
Whether it was true or not I do not know ; at
any rate, the newspapers reported it. The
November elections passed over, and the sales,
if they ever were, did not remain suspended.
Then the commotion increased, the excitement
rose, meetings were held all over this coun¬
try, resolutions were passed, and I especially
was flooded with an avalanche of letters and
addresses and pretests and remonstrances
urging me to attack the Government, for the
sales of arms that were made, on the floor of
the United States Senate. To show the
spirit of these manifestations, I will quote
a few sentences from one of them which was
sent to me, covered with thousands and thou¬
sands of signatures, by citizens of Wisconsin:
"Considering that the Gorman people at the time
of the war of the rebellion did not content them¬
selves with mere expressions of sympathy for the
United States, but also strengthened the credit of
this Republic by the purchase of bonds in great
number, thus cooperating in furnishing means to
fight the rebellion successfully; and considering
that almost every German-American citizen capable
of bearing arms followed the call of the President
against the rebellion and stepped into the ranks of
the Army, we declare that we as men of German
nativity and free citizens of the American Republic
do not approve of it that the same arms which,
partly at least, were bought by our money and car¬
ried by us in the war of the rebellion, should be now
sent to France to serve in killing our brothers and
relatives."
I say I received thousands and thousands
of signatures attached to such papers as these,
urging me to attack the Administration for
those proceedings on this floor. I did not carry
the matter before the Senate of the United
States, deemingitimprudentat that time to pro¬
voke a debate which would have involved our
relations with the two great nations then at war
in Europe ; which might have tended to induce
the Administration majority on this floor to
defend, justify, and make itself responsible for
the sales of arms, which could not be denied.
I think now, and I thought then, that I acted
well in avoiding such discussions here. I
thought it was far wiser and far more expe¬
dient, and also surer of effect, to make every
effort by earnest application to the executive
branch of this Government to have these sales
11
of arms stopped and that source of unwhole¬
some excitement removed. So I went to tho
Secretary of War as soon as the matter came
fairly to my attenti«n.' I had a number of
interviews with him, reading to him the remon¬
strances which I received, pointing out to him
the thousands and thousands of signatures at¬
tached to them, representing to him how every¬
body in the United States understood very
well where those arms from our arsenals were.,
going—how everybody in the United States
learned week after week that cargo after cargo
of those arms were shipped to the theater of
war directly and indirectly, and entreated him
even by the consideration of political conse¬
quences to have the mischief discontinued. The
answer I received in several of these interviews
was that the Government had a right to sell
arras to American citizens; that ho did not
know that the arms went into the hands of
French agents, and did not see any reason to
stop the sales. Thus a considerable time I
entreated in vain. I continued my instances,
and finally went to the Seoretary of State to
urge the same matter upon his attention. He
promised to exert his influence in accordance
with my representations. As I understand,
although I cannot say so by authority, he has
always been opposed to the sale of arms. At
last the sale of arms was stopped, and I was
notified by both the Secretary of War and the
Secretary of State to that effect.
Now, sir, I do not state these circumstances
for the purpose of conjuring up again the feel¬
ings which then prevailed, but for another
reason. I did not then understand the whole
case. I did not know that not only arms had
been sold to one of the belligerents through
intermediate parties, but that also ammunition
had been manufactured far sale. I did not
know then that those transactions went more
or less directly through the hands of a man who
had become known as qn agent of the French
Government. I did not know then that large
sums of money were traveling on mysterious
roads. And yet, being ignorant of all this, I
must confess that a very grave suspicion arose
in me even then. Why? I saw this Government
doing a thing which not only was calculated
to compromise its international standing, its
relations with foreign Powers, nay, I saw this
Administration doing a thing which was calcu¬
lated to disturb the good feeling which existed
between it and what everybody will admit to
be a very useful, and estimable, and' most
patriotic class of American citizens—doing all
this for no apparent reason but to sell arms,
which sooner or later might have been dis¬
posed of to equal advantage without any of
the risks now attending the transaction. And
when thus I saw that the international stand¬
ing of this country was jeopardized, and that
even every consideration of political prudence
was set aside without any counterbalancing
public advantage, then I must confess the sus¬
picion forced itself instinctively upon my mind
that there was a job at the bottom of this other-
Wise senseless proceeding.
Understand me well. I am by no means
willing to cast any aspersion of that kind upon
the Secretary of War. I have always esteemed
him an honest man, and I do believe that in
these transactions he is rather a victim than a
guilty co-actor. But, gentlemen, do not close
your eyes to one-fact—and here I will express
myself frankly and boldly. There is an im¬
pression prevailing in this country that some¬
where in this Government there sits " a mili¬
tary ring," which is exercising an unwhole¬
some, a far-reaching, a corrupt and dangerous
influence upon this Administration. That
impression is growing all over the land. This
suspicion may be well-founded or it may not.
And now, whether the inquiry here proposed
discover that there is such an influence, bring¬
ing the guilty men to disgrace and punishment,
or whether it discover that there is not, in
either case, I humbly submit, the investigation
will have rendered a great service to the best
interests of the country, and to the honor of
the American name.
Tuesday, February 20, 1872.
Mr. SCHURZ said :
Mr. President : The weakness of a cause is
apt to disclose itself by the nature of the argu¬
ments used in its support. When such argu¬
ments consist largely in peiisonal attacks and
insinuations coseerning the motives and pur¬
poses of those holding an opposite view, or in
general declamation about other subjects, the
suspicion lies near that there must be some¬
thing wrong and rotten in. the case. If this
must be admitted as a general. rule, then
nobody who ha3 listened to the speeches
delivered by the Senator from Indiana [Mr.
Morton] and the Senator from New York
[Mr. Con-kling] will deny that the rule finds
its application here. The Senator from Iu-
diana tried to convince the Senate tha't there
could be nothing suspicious in the sales of
arms effected by this Government during the
French-German war, because "everyroad out
of the Republican party leads into the Demo¬
cratic party;" because the platform of the
Missouri Liberals does not accord with his rule
of constitutional construction, and must there¬
fore be unrepublican and radically wrong, and
because he is in favor of the renomination and
reelection of General Grant, and he is sure to
have it!
The Senator from New York [Mr. Conk-
ling] followed in the footsteps of the Senator
from Indiana. He tried to convince us with
magnificent rhetoric that the sales of arms
must be necessarily above all blame, because
there is no impression abroad of the existence
of a military ring in this Government ; but
there is an impression of the existence of a
"senatorial cabal" on this floor bent upon
destroying this Administration, and that the
Democrats are circulating the speeches of cer¬
tain Republican Senators in New Hampshire
in order to defeat the Administration party
there.
These things may all have been very inter-
12
esting, instructive, nn<l elegantly expressed,
but permit mo to suggest that they did not
throw maoh light upon the question now under
discussion ; and I should pass them over with¬
out further notice did I not deem it proper to
devote a few remarks to one statement made
by the Senator from New York yesterday.
With an air of triumph he held up a pam¬
phlet purporting to contain a copy of a speeeh
of mine, saying that that pamphlet was circu¬
lated by the Democratic party as a campaign
document in New Hampshire, and was pro¬
ducing greater effect than any document so far
distributed by th-em among the people. I have
since inquired into the matter; and what, sir,
do yon think that pamphlet contained? It
contained speeches delivered by the Senator
from Illinois, [Mr. Trumbull,] by the Sen¬
ator from Massachusetts, [Mr. Summer,]
by the Senator from Nebraska, [Mr. Tip-
Tpx,] and by myself, denouncing the corrup¬
tion prevailing in the custom-house at New
York, and urging an investigation of abuses.
Sir, if such things work against the suc¬
cess of the Administration party in New
Hampshire, my impression is that the fault
does not Me with those who denounce corrup¬
tion, but with those who, while they might
have rooted it out, have tolerated it. It lies
with the sycophants who, by covering up every
abuse ever so scandalous, defending every vio¬
lation of law ever so glaring, have produced
in the commonwealth an atmosphere in which
corruption cas live and grow.
Yes, sir, there is a "senatorial cabal" on
this floor. It is the cabal which defeated the
St. Domingo sekeme. It is the cabal which
forced the investigation of corrupt practices
in the New York custom house. It is that
cabal which rendered the reformation of those
crj-ing abuses at last unavoidable by boldly
attacking them. But let me tell the Senate
that the speeches of the Senators from Massa¬
chusetts and Illinois and Nebraska and my own
would never produce the least effect adverse
to the Administration, could it not be said in
addition that the most scandalous abuse de¬
nounced in those speeches, the general-order
business in the eustom-kouse at New York,
after having been laid open in its whole
naked deformity to the authorities a year ago,
has yet not been abolished ; and that even
weeks after the second investigation had ex¬
hibited this abuse in a still more glaring light,
Leet and Stocking are at this very moment
fattening upon the gains taken from the mer¬
chants of New York. Those who tolerate
abuses are answerable for their effect upon
public opinion, and not those who denounce
them. Had abuses been abolished when they
were exposed, no denunciations need be feared.
There is the rub.
Sir, the so-called "senatorial cabal" are
ac'customed to such attacks as we witness now,
and its members are not afraid of them. They
have accomplished the investigation in New
York thrpugh their urgency ; they have thus
rendered some service to the cause of reform,
and now they are endeavoring to repeat the
experiment. That is nil I desire to say on
that part of the Senator's speech.
Now, sir, as to the case before us, I look
upon it as one of great importance. It calls
for candid and fearless consideration. If we
strip it of all the personal animadversions and
the flowers of rhetoric in which it has been
enveloped as in a cloud of smoke, and if we
look at it in its simplicity, we find in it three
great questions presented : first, was any¬
thing done in connection with the sales of
arms effected during the French-German war
that was inconsistent with the rule laid down
by this Government for its own action—the
rule that no arms should be sold to any known
agent, of a belligerent Power? Second, was
what was done, in accordance with the laws of
the country? Third, is there in the facts as
tlicy stand before us any ground for suspicion
of corrupt practices connected with those trans¬
actions? The whole subject resolves itself
into these three plain questions.
Let us look at the first. A short restate¬
ment of the facts in the case will be necessary.
The War Department is by law permitted to
sell certain kinds of arms and ordnance stores.
It did so for a long period of time, and there
was nobody finding any fault. Then came the
great war in Europe, which surrounded the case
with circumstances of extraordinary moment.
The President issued his proclamation pledg¬
ing this great Government to observe the
strictest neutrality between the two belligerent
Powers. Now, will any Senator pretend that
there was no extraordinary precaution neces¬
sary in the sale of arms after that proclama¬
tion of neutrality had been issued? The rule
established by the War Department, that no
arms should be sold to any known agent of
any of the belligerent parties, was good. Was
that rule honestly established? Was it faith¬
fully observed? Was it laid down in good
faith? If so, that rule had to mean some¬
thing.
It will escape the attention of no one that in
a case like this, during the pendency of a great
war abroad, there is a wide difference between
the transactions carried on by a private mer¬
chant and similar transactions carried on by a
Government. A private merchant may sell
arms even directly to a belligerent ; he only
takes upon himself the risk that those arms be
captured by the opposite party and be con¬
demned as contraband of war. But a neutral
Government has something far higher to con¬
sider than a mere financial venture. A neu¬
tral Government has its impartial standing to
preserve between the belligerent parties, and
in this respect its character and its honor
among the nations of the world to maintain ;
and the honor and the character of a great
Government are far more valuable than any
number of millions that might be gained by a
profitable transaction of trade.
Now, sir, the rule laid down by the War De¬
partment for the government of its own action
was good in this respect. Let us see how it
was observed. The Senator from New York
yesterday said that he wanted to have more
13
light upon the subject, and I think he ought
to have it. What were the operations of the
Ordnance Bureau? I do not rely upon hear¬
say or upon the testimony of irresponsible
persons ; I rely only upon documentary evi¬
dence, upon statements of facts which come
in an official way from the Ordnance Bureau
and the War Department itself. Then, sir,
it will certainly be admitted that my authority
is good. The pamphlet I now hold in my
hand contains all the letters given to Mr.
Remington by private persons and by officers
of this Government to accredit him with the
world abroad, and to facilitate the settlement
of his accounts in France, which had become
a little disturbed by suspicions having arisen
as to his conduct in this business. In this
pamphlet I find a letter already referred to, a
letter from the chief of ordnance, General
Dyer, certified to by the Secretary of War
under his official seal. The chief of ordnance
describes the operations of the War Depart¬
ment at that period in the following manner.
The document is printed in the French lan¬
guage^ the letters were undoubtedly translated
from the English into French by somebody
for Mr. Remington, and were then published
for his benefit in Paris. I will translate back
again what I desire to quote :
'* After the end of the rebellion, this Department,
with the sanction of Congress, made arrangements
for the saleof arms and otherordnancestores, and the
firm of E. Remington & Sons was frequently among
the purchasers. Between the 1st of July and the
middle of October, 1870, very considerable sales were
made by this Department to that house, and among
them a sale of fifty thousand Springfield rifles,
cleaned and repaired, at the price of five dollars
each, on the 28tli of September, 1870. At that period
that class of arms was very littlo in demand, and the
price was considered very low."
It was indeed ; for, as I am informed, a few
months before that arms of the same class were
sold at the rate of seven dollars apiece.
" The demand for Springfield rifles, however, grew
at that period, and when I resumed my functions in
the Bureau of Ordnance toward the middle of Octo¬
ber, 1870, I found a large number of bids for those
arms on the files of the Department, and the bidders
very anxious to buy. They were indeed so anxious
to secure these arms that I ordered that no sales
should be made until new bids for Springfield rifles
should have been called out by this Department.
My recommendation was highly approved, and I
immediately invited by letters bids from the prin¬
cipal merchants of arms who were known to this
Department.
"Half an hour before the time fixed for the open¬
ing of these bids, Mr. Squire, who was known as the
agent of the house of Remington & Sons, showed
me a dispatch from a member of that house which
proved that Messrs. Remington & Sons were the
agents of the French Government, and which author¬
ized him [Squire] to buy arms for them. The object
of Mr. Squire in showing me this dispatch seemed to
me to be to prevent those arms from falling into the
hands of persons who would extort from him in
reselling them to him a higher price. Ho seemed
very anxious to buy these arms of the Department
at as low a price as possible.
" I put off the opening of the bids, and immedi¬
ately communicated to you that dispatch, and you
promptly told me not to accept any bid on the part
of Mr. Squire and Remington &. Sons for arms. You
told me that you would not let arms be sold to an
agent of either of the belligerent Powers, France
or Prussia. I communicated this decision to Mr.
Squire, and I invited new bids for the arms. A few
days afterward I sold a large quantity of Springfield
riflos on bids which I had called out after the inter¬
view I had had with you on this subjoct."
This, sir, was the modus operandi in which
very large lots of arras were sold. Aside from
this, this letter
Mr. THURMAN. To whom was that letter
addressed ?
Mr. SCHURZ. It was addressed by the
chief of ordnance to the Secretary of War, and
it was by the Secretary of War, under the offi¬
cial seal of the Department, sent to Mr. Rem¬
ington, and then used by him in Paris to facil¬
itate the settlement of his accounts. This letter
contains, besides, several paragraphs praising
Mr. Remington very highly, and fully indors¬
ing liim in his character as a patriot and as a
business man.
It appears from this letter that in the first
place the question of thirty days' notice as pro¬
vided for by the statute was entirely ignored";
but to be perfectly fair, I will suppose that
the same arms had already once been offered
at public sale, that a publie notice might have
been omitted, and that they could afterward be
sold at private sale. You will, however, notice
that bids were called out by private letters sent
around among merehantswho were well known
to theDepartmentatWashington. Then came
the discovery of Squire.
But still another thing intervened. One firm
of merchants dealing in arms, the firm of
Boker & Co., atNew York, the largest German
arms merchants there, had not been advised.
The chief manager of that hoitfse learned acci¬
dentally that great sales of arms were to be
made. He came to Washington. He com¬
municated that fact to the Prussian minis¬
ter, and out of that circumstance grew those
occurrences and conversations to which I
referred in my speech the other day. He went
to the Department and requested that the sales
be postponed. The sales were postponed, as
the chief of ordnance informs us in this docu¬
ment, for a few days. Now, sir, since the Sen¬
ator from New York the other day put forth the
assertion that a German house in New York
had bought arms which were subsequently
sent to Germany, I desire now to say that
I have received very reliable information
on that subject, and I find that the Sen¬
ator from New York had no reason to ex¬
press himself with such certainty. How¬
ever, the sales were postponed. As I am
reliably informed, that merchant thought
the sales were postponed at his instance ;
but if we may draw a conclusion from the
language of the report of General Dyer, it
appears just as likely that the sales were post¬
poned in consequence of the discovery that
the firm of Remington & Sons had justavowed
themselves to their agent Squire as the agents
of the French Government, one of the bel¬
ligerent PoweTS, and that their bids would
therefore not be accepted. There were new
calls for bi-ls. The sales were finally made,on
the 20th of October. They were completed
at New York at four o'clock p. m. on the 21st
of October ; and according to a dispatcbf&f
the French consul, which appeared in the
14
Place trial, dated on the 22d of October, one
day after tho sales had been completed the
required advance on these arms had already
been paid by the French Government, through
the French consul at New York. If you want
the proof of this, I havo it before me.
In the first place, as to tho completion of the
sales General Dyer himself says, in instructing
Major Crispin, at New York:
" You are authorized to dolivor the arms to tho
parties above mentioned on the payment of twonty
or cent, on tho purohaso money, &o., on Wodnos-
ay, the 21st instant, at four o'olock p. in."
I have here an account of the trial of Place,
on the forty-ninth page of which it appears
that Place, on the 22d of October, sent a dis¬
patch to the commission of armament at Tours,
in which he informs that commission that these
same items of arms had been bought by the
French Government, and that the necessary
payments had been made by him. It must be
admitted that business was done promptly,
and that if that business was not done by
Remington himself, it was done by interme¬
diate parties with a rapidity perfectly marvel¬
ous. Does not the question naturally suggest
itself whether the sales after Squire had dis¬
covered himself as a French agent, were post¬
poned with a view of giving him an opportun¬
ity to make private arrangements with other
bidders? I will not charge anything of the
kind as having been done, but I would ask
every fair-minded man whether the suspicion
does not, according to the circumstances, lie
very near, considering that if it had been the
programme, it could scarcely have been carried
out with greater promptness?
Mr. CORBETT. I should like to make .an
inquiry of the Senator from Missouri to see
whether I understood him correctly ; whether
Herman Boker & Co., the German house of
which he spoke, sold these arms? It is stated
that all these arms went to France, and if so,
they must have included those purchased by
the German house also.
Mr. SCHURZ. Well, the arms were bought
by one of the members of that German house
who came to Washington as soon as he had ac¬
cidentally heard that those sales were to be
made. The Senator will remember that there
has been some talk here of an intention on the
part of a New York merchant to pay the ad¬
vance money on arms in order to prevent
them from falling into the hands of the French,
with the expectation that afterward his loss
should be made good by the Prussian Govern¬
ment. The Senator will remember, also, it
was stated that there was a dispatch sent
across the water concerning this matter, and
that the German Government would have
nothing to do with the transaction. It was in
this way, as I understand it, that fifty thousand
Springfield muskets passed into the hands of
that firm—a firm which, having no market
anywhere else, would hardly have been able
to hold the arms, considering that the matter
inVblved a capital of nearly five hundred thou¬
sand dollars, or something like that, with no
prospect of relief. The arms passed from that
firm into the hands of the firm of Schuyler,
Hartley & G raham, and at once from Schuyler,
Hartley & Graham into tho hands of Roming-
ton, and were shipped to France. At any
rate, there is the transaction as it stands: a
sale at tho War Department after a man's bid
had been thrown out on the ground that he
was an agent of the French Government;
largo lots of arms sold ; and 110 sooner had
they boon sold than within the space of less
than two days those arms were in the hands
of the French consul.
I repeat, Mr. President, I will not say that
the ordnance department was privy to these
transactions, but no fair-minded man will deny
that if there were no other grounds for suspi¬
cion, that transaction alone would be sufficient
to suggest inquiry.
But now comes the case of Mr. Richardson,
"the little lawyer;" and I will promise the
Senator of New York not to speak jestingly of
him to-day. His little lawyer shall be treated
with tho utmost seriousness. What did Mr.
Richardson want? This transaction occurred
in the month of December. He wanted a large
lot of breech-loading arms ; he wanted more
than forty thousand breech-loading Springfield
muskets. I should like to know whether, when
the War Department sent around its private
letters to the arms merchants of the country,
one of those letters was addressed to " Mr.
Thomas Richardson, attorney-at-law, Ilion,
New York?" The Senator from New York
will observe that I am treating the mattervery
seriously. It would be interesting to learn
whether his name, too, had come before the
War Department as one of the great dealers
in arms and ordnance stores of the country.
The Senator from New York yesterday laid
great stress upon the circumstance that it was
not absolutely necessary for Mr. Richardson,
the lawyer, to appear here to transact that
business in person, and that the War Depart¬
ment had no interest to inquire at all whether
ho was a lawyer or an arms merchant. The
Senator from New York wants more light, and
he ought to have more upon this subject also.
No, sir, Mr. Richardson, the lawyer, could not
transact his business with the War Depart¬
ment by merely sending in a bid and by
depositing a check amounting to twenty per
cent, of the purchase-money. Under ordin¬
ary circumstances that might have been
done ; but I think I shall be able to prove to
the Senator from New York that in this case
it hardly could be done; and why? There
was some difficulty about those breech-loaders ;
there were a great many more wanted by the
French Government through Mr. Romington
than could be had. Cartridges also w-ere
wanted, and cartridges could not immediately
be had, and it required an effort to induce the
ordnance department to order that .they be
manufactured. This appears from Mr. Rem¬
ington's letter, whose veracity the Senator
from Now York will not be likely to impeach.
Now, sir, there must certainly have been
some person to overcome all these great ob¬
stacles, by his presence here at Washington;
15
for it was, according to the testimony before
us, an intricate and difficult affair. Therefore,
in order to overcome the objections of the De¬
partment to the sale of as many Springfield
breech-loaders as he wanted, the lawyer Rich¬
ardson would have been bound to come here ;
and also, in order to have those cartridges
manufactured, and to remove the doubts of
the War Department in that respect, the pres¬
ence of the purchasing lawyer was urgently
required. There was, indeed, a personal
effort made, and that personal effort appears
on record also ; but it was not made by law¬
yer Richardson, whose presence in Washington
has never been asserted, although it has by
myself been very pointedly put in question ;
but that personal effort, according to the rec¬
ord, was made by Mr. Remington himself.
Here is his letter :
"Regarding the purchase of Springfiolds, (trans¬
formed,) Allen's system, I am sorry to say the great¬
est number wo may hope to get will not, I fear,
exceed forty thousand. The Government has never
made but about seventy-five thousand all told, and
forty thousand is the greatest number they think it
prudent to spare."
A piece of knowledge which might be quite
natural in Mr. Remington, the great arms
merchant, but would be rather surprising in
the lawyer of Ilion.
" I may bo able to procure, depending upon an
exchange of our arms"—
Not Mr. Richardson's, I.suppose—
"at some future time, for the number of breech-
loading Springlields over and above forty thousand
they arc willing to let go now.
"This question of an exchange, with the very
friendly feeling I find existing to aid France, Ihope
to be able to procure inoro. Cartridges for these
forty thousand will in a great measure require to be
made, as the Governmenthave but about three mil¬
lion in hand. But the Government has consented
to allow the requisite number, four hundred for each
gun, to be made, and the cartridge-works have had
orders given yesterday"—
Mr. Remington could not have been very
far away to be so well informed—
".to increase production to the full capacity of
works. This question of making the cartridges at
the Government works was a difficult one to get over.
But it is done."
Now, sir, this is the same Mr. Remington
who had about the middle of October been
discovered as a French agent by the most
authoritative document that could possibly be
presented, a dispatch coming from him to his
sub-agent Squire; and yet the same Mr. Rem¬
ington, in the name probably of Mr. Rich¬
ardson, transacted this business and overcame
all the difficulties standing in the way. We
have heard much about Mr. Remington's per¬
sonal honor, aud I would be the very last man
toeast a slur upon it. The Senator from New
York has been telling us that he. is a gentle¬
man of very high qualities. Certainly he is
then not the "bragging broker" who, in his cor¬
respondence with his employers, would make
use of expressions to ascribe to himself the
credit of a success which really belonged to
another.
But this letter contains something else yet—
a significant statement about batteries. We ,
find the same batteries to bo those which
were sold to Austin, Baldwin & Co., for
there is no other item of fifty batteries in this
great catalogue except one sold in March,
which has not yet beep touched in this debate.
It appears that at first Mr. Remington had
made a contract for one hundred batteries,
that the French Government'then only wanted
fifty, that the deposit of twenty per cent, in
advance on the one hundred batteries had al¬
ready been made, and that the War Depart¬
ment had to be persuaded to let go half of the
money that had already been advanced. In
this Mr. Remington, according to his letter,
succeeded again, and again it cannot bo sap-
posed that he was a mere " bragging broker,"
who would ascribe to himself an exploit which
really belonged to Austin Baldwin & Com¬
pany. It must be confessed that it required
considerable familiarity between the ordnance
department and Mr. Remington to make the
former so exceedingly accommodating to him,
consenting to relinquish half of the bargain
already concluded by the payment of the
advance money.
But, sir, we have some more testimony from
Mr. Remington—not a mere letter, which may
be liable to a double interpretation, but testi¬
mony which Mr. Remington gave under oath ;
and I shall now lay that before t-he Senate.
Mr. Remington was a witness in the great
Place trial, and in his deposition before the
court be expressed himself as follows : I have
to translate from the French again :
"X did not regard myself as obliged to make
advances, [for the French Government;]'still less
inasmuch as X had myself to pay to the Government
of the United States an advance of ten to twenty
per cent."
But something still more significant. Mr.
Remington was on the witness-stand twice,
once in the Place trial and onee before the in¬
vestigating committee of the French National
Assembly. Before that committee he declared
upon his oath again, after having spoken of
certain transactions, "butthe Government"—
meaning the French Government—" insisted,
and I was charged by it to treat with -the Gov¬
ernment of the United States and now we
come also to the motive which brought Mr.
Remington here in December, in order to
transact the business connected with the pur¬
chase ostensibly made by Mr. Thomas Rich¬
ardson, the lawyer. He says :
"At that moment the French Government was so
much in need of arms that the commission ou arm¬
ament desired that I should go to America at once
for the purpose of seeing whether it would be pos¬
sible to secure arms of my house, breech-loaders,
which had been acquired by the Government of the
United States. I left Tours on the 18th oUNovem-
ber, and Iarrivcd atNew Yorkon the 2d of Decem¬
ber."
And it was after this that those interviews
and transactions with our War Department
took place which are described in the letter of
Mr. liemington himself.
Now, sir, let us look at the facts. How was
the great rule observed that no arms should
be sold to an agent of either of the belligerent
16
Powers? What was required for tho observ¬
ance of that rule? My own interpretation of
it, as to the extent of its binding force, has
appeared in the Globe ; it was as follows:
"Tho Government"—
After having made that declaration and laid
down for its own action that rule—
" had to ho cnroful not only not to soil to mon whom
they knew to bo agents of either ono or tho other of
the bolliKoront parties, but tho Government lmd to
satisfy themselves that persons applying for arms
were not tho agents of either ono or tho o-thor of tho
belligerent parties with all tho means of information
within reach,"
This statement was objected to as altogether
too extravagant. The Senator from Indiana
gave his own interpretation of the rule, and I
will read it. He said :
"All that could be required of our Government
in that connection would bo tho exorcise of what
may bo called reasonable diligonco. If tboy have
reason to bclievo that the persou buying tho arms
is the agent of the French Government or of any
belligerent, then our Government has no right to
make tho sale."
And further on he said:
"All that we are called upon to know is that he is
not the agent of ono of the belligerent parties aDrt
thatwe are not selling to a belligerent Government."
Let me bring this home to the Senator from
Indiana. "All that we are called upon to
know is that the purchaser is not the agent
of one of the belligerent parties and that we
are not selling to a belligerent Government."
Sir, I am perfectly willing to waive my own
and to adopt the interpretation of the Senator
from Indiana. What, sir, does "reasonable
diligence" in a case like this mean? Does it
not mean that a Government should satisfy
itself by all accessible means of information ?
Let me draw it still milder and say by all the
means of information within easy reach—taking
circu-mstances into account—that a buyer is
not acting as the agent of one of the belliger¬
ent parties? This is not a question of mere
legal technicality. This, applied to a great
Government, is a question ®f good faith; it
is a question of political morals. Now, let us
see what the moral code of the Senator from
Indiana is according to his own statement.
He says :
"All we could do would bo to take their word;
and when we asked them the question, ' Are you
buying these arms for France?' they would havo
said, 'We are buying them for ourselves: we are
merchants.' I ask, could we go one step further?"
Then I put a question to the Senator from
Iadiana in this language :
" The Government of the Unitedjotates very prop¬
erly laid down for itself a certain rule of action,
which consisted in this, that no arms should be sold
to one known to be the agent of one of the belliger¬
ent parties. Now, suppose a third party applies for
arms, suppose the known agent of the belligerent
government, in this case, for instance, Mr. Reming¬
ton, appears before the ordnance department and
transacts there the business of that new applicant,
that third party—I am not going to try to prove that
this was here actually the case, but I am merely rea¬
soning upon that supposition—the known agent of a
foreign Government, one of the belligerent parties,
acting as the sub-agent of one who applies for arms,
would there be proof enough to the Government that
has arms for sale, that those arms are going into tho
hands of oneof the agents of a belligerent Power?
Now, mark what moral standard the Senator
from Indiana applies to a case like this:
" Mr. Morton. As to whether that would oven
excite a suspicion depends very much on the sur¬
rounding circumstances. Now, I will suppose that
when Mr. Richardson's proposition cams in to buy
arms Mr. Remington cue as his a$cnt. I shall put
it on tho ground that Remington did go forward as
tho agont, of Richardson, tho little country lawyer.
What is there remarkable about that?"
Is there indeed nothing remarkable about
that to the mind of the Senator from Indiana?
Listen again :
"If Mr. Remington had never been known to this
Government except as purchasing arms for France,
it might havo ied to the suspicion that Mr. Reming¬
ton was acting nevertheless for tho French Govern¬
ment; but when you take into consideration that
ho is an arms merchant, the most extensive perhaps
i n the world, and has been for fifteen yoars, and that
bo lias boon buying arms of this Government a great
while, and that bis character as an arms merchant
is known, and that lie sometimos scHs arms to one
Government and sometimes sells to another, and
that ho is selling all tho time to different Gov¬
ernments, it would not necessarily load to the
suspicion that ho went there as the agent of
France."
New, sir, before heaven and earth I invoke
the common sense of the country ; when a
man like Mr. Remington, who had just been
disclosed to this Government as the great
arms-buying agent of the Drench Govern¬
ment, and whose bids bad on that account
just been thrown out by the War Department,
appears as an intermediary for some other per¬
son, and that persqn is merely a lawyer, and
not an arms merchant, to make a great pur¬
chase, will not every sane man at once jump at
the conclusion that he can be there for no
other purpose but to fill his own contracts?
Tho Senator speaks of taking "surrounding
circumstances" into consideration. Why, sir,
was there not 0110 surrounding circumstance
overshadowing all others, namely, that Mr.
Remington was the declared agent of France ;
that he could not buy in his own name, and
was therefore necessarily driven to seek a
third party under whose name he might buy?
And when he now appears under the name of
a little lawyer—let me use that expression
once more—who had never been in the arms
business before, had never been known to the
trade, is it not most incredible that then our
authorities should not even have found a ground
for suspicion that he was buying in another's
name to fill his own contracts? Why, sir, let
the question be submitted to the plainest or to
the wisest man in this country, must not their
judgment be the same ?
"Reasonable diligence!" What does the
Senator mean by "reasonable diligence?"
The reasonable diligence that was in this case
used by the. ordnance department consisted
certainly in nothing but in most diligently,
most frantically, nay, most fanatically closing
its eyes against the most convincing circum¬
stances. " Reasenable diligence," according
to him, would have required nothing, but when
a man came to the department saying, "lam
the agent of one of the belligerent Powers,"
iheu to say " You cannot buy after such a con¬
fession." What a mockery 1 In my youthful
days, when I was in the insurrectionary army
17
of southern Germany, some twenty-odd years
ago, I remember one day a very stupid-looking
person was hailed by one of our sentinels,
"Who goes there?" "Ah," said ha, "by
your leave I am a secret spy and so he was
taken prisoner, and upon my soul he was not
shot because the fellow was looking too in¬
fernally stupid. [Laughter.] But still more
stupid would be that agent of a belligerent
Power who, having been refused once, would
go to the department and say, " Here is Mr.
Richardson, and I am his sub-agent ; he
merely acts for me, and I buy arms in his
name." " Reasonable diligence 1" Why, sir,
such reasonable diligence would have been the
most transparent farce every played in con¬
nection with the transactions of a great Govern¬
ment.
But, sir, the Senator from New York has
still another standard of "reasonable dili-
fence" in maintaining our neutral duties,
le said yesterday—and I was sorry not to
find his speech in the Globe to-day, so as to
verify my recollection—that if a person merely
sends in his bid and his check for twenty per
cent, of the price of the arms, that is enough
for the War Department, and the War De¬
partment is not obliged to look beyond it.
Am I stating the Senator from New York
correctly?
Mr. CONKLING. Perhaps correctly enough
for the purpose of the Senator ; not correctly,
however.
Mr. SCHURZ. I shall be obliged to the
Senator if he will restate his own position.
Mr. CONKLING. I never suggested that
any bidder might send his check ; but on the
contrary I was so particular as to state that he
had better send legal-tender notes ; and I said
that as there was no color in money, if he
sent the money, the name of the buyer was
cash, in the language of business.
Mr. SCHURZ. Very well, sir. Now, in
times of war abroad when the head of the
State has issued a solemn proclamation of
neutrality, when care is to be taken that our
neutral duties be observed and the good faith
of the country is at stake, what then? No
•matter, "cash" is the man who buys, provided
the name of that cash is not exactly wrapped
up in the name of a man known to be the
agent of one of the belligerent parties. But
here comes a person who may be manifestly
a mere blind for such an agent, as Richardson
was for Remington—no matter "cash" is the
man that buys, and we have to look at nothing
but "cash." But, sir, taking the surrounding
circumstances into consideration, where is our
good faith, where are our neutral duties, where
is that reasonable diligence which is to be exer¬
cised that no arms go from the Government
directly into the hands of an agent of one of
the belligerent Powers ? No matter, this great
American Republic of ours understands and
interprets her good faith and her neutral duties
only upon a strictly cash principle I Oh, how
proudly the standard of our national morality
and honor was borne aloft by the Senator from
New York yesterday, with a dollar in cash as
tho coat of arms of this great Republic !
How grand and proud 1 *
Seriously speaking, are we sensible, are we
honest men? Is this a Government having a
character for good faith and honor to maintain ?
Is this rule of neutral duty as interpreted by
the Senator from Indiana and the Senator from
New York—is that the rule of neutral duties
they want to be established, not only to be
observed by us, but also toward us?
Let me warn the Senate to pause well before
committing itself and this Government to a
position so absurd, so mean, so utterly dishon¬
orable. Let me tell them that it is never safe
for a great nation to play little tricky games
and to cover them up with little quibbling
technicalities. Sir, placed as we are, let us
be careful what we do, for we might have to
pay dearly for it.
Sir, we have been accused of making a case
here for the German Government. Very far
from me any such intention ; nor do I think
that which we advise will have any such effect.
No, if there is a case, it was made up be¬
fore a word was spoken on this subject in
the Senate. Before all Europe stands at this
moment printed in large characters the letter
of the chief of ordnance, officially indorsed
and sanctioned with the seal of the War De¬
partment by the Secretary of War, helping
Remington in his settlements, after Reming¬
ton had been thrown out of the War Depart¬
ment, ostensibly at least, as an agent of one
of the belligerent Powers.
More than that ; Remington himself under
oath indicates that while having one contract
with the French Government he bad another
contract with the American Government, as I
have just shown. But still more than that, and
now I want the Senate to hear and consider
what I have to say. You have heard the name
of Mr. Jules Le Cesne mentioned here as the
president of the commission of armament in
France who directed these purchases of arms.
Mr. Jules Le Cesne, too, was under oath, and
he gave under oath his testimony in the Place
trial. There Mr. Jules Le Cesne, the same
man with whom Remington corresponded,
made the following declaration ; the question
was upon a certain overcharge of twenty-five
cents upon a lot of rifles :
"M. Le Cesne. There was no expense beyond the
five per cent, allowed to Mr. Remington, since we
had treated directly with the Federal Government
of the United States, which delivered these arms,
without charge, on board the vessels."
Now, sir, I hope, I trust, nay I might say I
know that no diplomatic understanding was
meant here, and that it merely referred to an
understanding which existed through Rem¬
ington between the armament commission in
France and the ordnance department at Wash¬
ington. But, sir, do you still talk of our mak¬
ing up a case for a foreign Government here ?
Can you still indulge in the delusion that the
German Government are not as well aware of
the details of this case as you are, and perhaps
even better? When such a declaration under
oath stands before the public, what must be
the impression that the world abroad receives?
18
If there is any claim that can spring out of a
transaction like Ibis, is not anything that has
been said here lar less calculated to strengthen
it tkau these simple words spoken by the
president of the commission of armament of
France? What then can we do under the cir¬
cumstances? What is it our duty to do? What
Mr. Le Cesne said thçre is either true or it is
not. In either case we have to investigate it,
and to probe the matter to the bottom in order
either to show that there is no foundation for
this assertion, or if there is a wrong discovered
by searching and conscientious inquiry, then to
bring the guilty parties to prompt and condign
punishment. There is no other course left to
us if we want to maintain the good name and
the best interests of this country.
Now, sir, I approach the second question
which 1 desire to discuss. It is this: were, in
these proceedings, the laws of our own country
observed or violated? Let us inquire. I am
very far from desiring to occupy myself with
trifles such as the thirty days' notice which
ought, perhaps, to have been given to all will¬
ing or able to buy before the arms were sold.
There may be some ground upon which the
omission can be justified. No, sir; I would
even go so far as not to say much more about
the matter of the cartridges. I am willing to
let the manufacture of these cartridges stand
just as it now appears in this debate, and if
Senators think they can by any quibbling in¬
terpretation of a law make the people of the
United States believe that a power to sell use¬
less ordnance stores means also a power to
manufacture cartridges for sale, I wish them
joy. Sir, has it never occurred to this body
that it was of very doubtful legality to sell
these breech-loading rifles at all? What is the
law? Let us look at this interesting statute
once more :
" Remlved, i-c.. That the Secretary of War be, and
he is hereby, authorized and directed to cause to be
sold, after offer at public sale on thirty days' notice,
in such manner and at such times and places, at
public or private sale, as he may deem most advan¬
tageous to the publio interest"—
Now, mark you—
"Ihe old cannon, arms, and other ordnance stores
now in possession of the War Department, which
are damaged or otherwise unsuitable for the Uni¬
ted States military service, or for the militia of
the United States, and to cause the net proceeds of
euch sales, after paying all proper expenses of sale
and transportation to the place of sale, to be depos¬
ited in the Treasury of the United States."
There was a large lot of breech-loading
Springfield rifles of the pattern of 1866 in the
arsenals of the United States. Considering the
question whether they could be sold at all, will
it not be well to interpret carefully what "old
cannon, arms, and other ordnance stores now
unsuitable for the United States military ser¬
vice or for the militia of the United States"
means? Is there perhaps any Senator on this
floor who can show me a single miiilia regi¬
ment in the United States that is armed with
an arm as good as the Springfield breech¬
loader of 1866? Go around and look at them,
and you will find that almost all of them have
the old muzzle-loader, and some of them per¬
haps oven the old smooth-bore musket. The
War Department itself was rather doubtful in
the matter, and, unless I uin greaily misin¬
formed, in the course of this investigation some
gentlemen will appear who will testify that
they applied for these very identical Springfield
breech-loaders and were refused because, as
the authorities told them, those Springfield
breech loaders would and could not be sold.
After all this, I assert here that upon the
very face of the case, according to the lan¬
guage of the statute, which cannot be mis¬
interpreted, and cannot be quibbled away, the
sale of these arms was a breach of the law. If
it was not, I should like to ask Senators what
the restraining clause in that statute means;
and inasmuch as I have had some conversation
wiih my friend from Indiana about that point,
I will address my queeion to him personally.
Can he tell me what the restraining clause in
this statute means, if it means anything? "Old
caunon, arms, and other ordnance Btores now
in possession of the War Department, which
are damaged or otherwise unsuitable for the
United States military service." Is there no
restriction in it at all?
Mr. MORTON. Will the Senator allow me
to ask him a question?
Mr. SCHURZ. Certainly.
Mr. MORTON. I ask the Senator whether
if breech-loading arms were manufactured in
1866 according to a certain patent, and after¬
ward an improved patent was adopted by the
Government of the United States, with which
they intended to arm our troops and furnish
the militia, whether then the old, discarded
patent might not properly be described in that
statute as unsuitable to the service of the
United States?
Mr. SCHURZ. May I answer, Yankee
fashion, the Senator with another question?
Mr. MORTON. Any way you please.
Mr. SCHURZ. When the militia of the
United States is still armed with muzzle-load¬
ers, and there is a breech-loading Springfield
rifle which is good enough to be used on the
battle-field against the Prussian needle-gun, as
it was in France, would not that be a better
arm for the militia than the muzzle-loader?
Mr. MORTON. I will answer the question
of the Senator from Missouri in the Yankee
way that he himself adopts, by another ques¬
tion.
Mr. SCHURZ. Very well.
Mr. MORTON. If there was no purpose
to arm the militia at the time at all, which
there was none, but the Government was try¬
ing to sell old muzzle-loaders, as it was, I ask
what force there is in his question? The Gov¬
ernment was trying to sell them all.
Mr. SCHURZ. According to the interpret¬
ation of the Senator from Indiana, then, this
statute ought to read thus : " That the Secre¬
tary of War be, and is hereby, authorized and
directed to cause to be sold, after offer at pub¬
lic sale on thirty days' notice, in such manner
and at such limes and places, at public or pri¬
vate sale, as he may deem most advantageous
to the public service, all the cannon, arms,
J 9
and ordnance stores that he may please to
sell." Is not that all there remains of" it? Ac¬
cording to his interpretation, is there any
restraining force in this statute at all? And I
ask the Senator from Indiana when the chief
of ordnance himself declares that arms or
ordnance stores are not unfit for the military
service or for the militia, but are positively
fit, would he say that he even then can sell
those articles ? I repeat my question to the
Senator from Indiana: is there anything short
of a declaration or admission from the Secre¬
tary of War himself that the arms are fit for
the use of the Army and by the militia that
would restrain the War Department in selling
arms at all under this statute?
Mr. MORTON. Precisely.
Mr. SCHURZ. What is it?
Mr. MORTON. The statute expresses that
the Secretary of War is authorized to sell such
arms as are not suitable to the service of the
United States; and here is an old patent, an
old form of breech-loader that has been super¬
seded. The Government does not want them ;
and therefore it comes within the express mean¬
ing of this statute, that it is not suitable, because
they have a better one.
Mr. SCHURZ. The Senator from Indiana
is very busy trying to get away from the points.
Now I will show him that the chief of ord¬
nance and the Secretary of War at the time
did not think so themselves, for, from the let¬
ter given to Mr. Remington, it appears that
when he applied for a certain lot of breech¬
loaders, there being about seventy-five thou¬
sand in the arsenals, he could not get forty
thousand, because they wanted to keep them.
Why? Because they were unsuitable for the
Army? If they were unsuitable the War De¬
partment should have been glad to get rid of
them. But I repeat the question to the Sen¬
ator from Indiana: can he point out to me
according to his interpretation any restraining
meaning in this statute? I suppose the Sen¬
ator from Indiana will be satisfied with noth¬
ing but a declaration from the chief of ord¬
nance and the Secretary of War themselves
that the arms were suitable for the Army and
militia of the United States. Would he be
satisfied with that? The Senator from Indi¬
ana answers not, and I suspect the reason, for
it will be necessary for him to find afterward
gome new expedient to justify the ordnance
department in selling arms which the chief of
ordnance himself had declared to befit for the
military service of the United States. So far
has it come, then, that the Senator does not
stand up to answer a question as fair as ever
a question was put: whether, when the Secre¬
tary himself declares an arm fit for the mili¬
tary service, he still has the right to sell it
under the statute?
Mr. MORTON. Does the Senator think I
am on the stand to be catechized and stand up ?
He must excuse me from standing up.
Mr. SCHURZ. Certainly.
Mr. MORTON. I am not very well able to
do it; but 1 want to say this, that the Senator
understands full well—if he does not he ought
to understand—that the breech-loaders which
were in the possession of the Government, and
which were sold, belonged to an old pattern
that had been discarded, and they were sold
for that very reason. The Government might
not have been prepared to sell them all at a
particular time until their places were sup¬
plied, but as fast as their places were supplied
by the new manufacture, they were selling the
old, and it was their interest to do it ; and if
the Senator does not know that fact now, he
is not posted on the subject at all.
Mr. SCHURZ. It seems to me the Senator
is losing himself very diligently in his breech¬
loaders. The question which I put to him was
a very different one; it was this: when the
Secretary of War himself declares certain arms
fit for the Army and the militia of the United
States, whether then still he has a right to sell
them under the statute? I repeat the ques¬
tion, and the Senator answers not ; he knows
well why, for I am now going to show the
Senator that the chief of ordnance reports to
the Secretary of War himself, and that this
report is sanctioned by the Secretary of War
with his official seal, that arms and ordnance
stores were sold which by the Departmentitself
were declared fit for the Army and for the mili¬
tia of the United States. Here, sir, is General
Dyer's letter to General Belknap, which reads
as follows :
"In reply to your questions about the quality of
the ordnance stores sold by this Department, I have
to say that all the ordnance stores sold as good and fit
for service were considered so, and fit to be used.
They were so marked down on the inventory books
of the arsenals, and so considered as good for service
by the commandants of those arsenals.
"Those ordnance stores were considered fit to be
issued to our troops.
" The cartridges which were sold were duly in¬
spected after they had been received by the United
States"—
Meaning from the factories—
" and they were considered as good for the servioe
and fit to be distributed among the troops when they
were sold."
And this is done under a statute which pro¬
vides—
"That the Secretary of War be, and he is hereby,
authorized and directed to cause to be sold the old
cannon, arms, and other ordnance stores now in
possession of the War Department, which are dam¬
aged or otherwise unsuited for the United States
military service, or for the militia of the United
States."
Well, sir, after this I think I may feel my
self authorized to charge here before the Sen¬
ate and the country a flagrant and manifest
breach of law on the showing of the chief of
ordnance himself, sanctioned with the official
seal of the War Department, and if there is
any way to justify that, I shall look for it with
a certain degree of curiosity.
But may 1 ask the Senator what will become
of the popular respect for the laws if we reck¬
lessly quibble away their meaning? May I ask
the Senator how he can expect the officers of
the Government to obey the laws if they learn
from the Senate of the United States that those
laws have no binding force for them ? I ask
him what will become of constitutional gov¬
ernment in this country if we tell the execu-
20
ltive power that it can trample upon the laws
just as it pleases, and that, like Cœsar Augus
tus, it can always rely upon an obedient and
■submissive Senate? Let us well pause before
we go farther in this direction, for here there
is something higher at stake than cartridges
or cash.
And now I will proceed to the third ques¬
tion to be discussed : is there in these facts any
reason to be found to justify suspicion as to
the corrupt character of these transactions?
Let me repeat what I said at the close of my
remarks the other day. It must have been
manifest at the time when these sales took
place, to every sane mind, how our interna¬
tional relations were risked ; how the good
will and friendship of a large, estimable, and
patriotic class of our population were jeop¬
ardized, both things more valuable than any
financial gain realized from any sale of arms—
arms which might have been disposed of some
time cr other almost with equal profit. That
alone, as I said then, forced upon my mind a
suspicion that there was a job at the bottom
-of these proceedings, and I will repeat that
then I had absolutely no knowledge of the
things we have been discussing here to-day.
But more : look now at the letter of General
Dyer, so anxious to insure Remington's suc-
eess in settling his accounts, accounts grow¬
ing out of the very transactions fsr which he
had ostensibly been driven out of the War
Department; so anxious, indeed, to aid him
in the settlement that he himself confesses
•to a flagrant violation of the law. Is there
no ground for suspicion? I might not say
another word about the differences that are
found between the sums paid by France and
received by the United States, while Reming¬
ton's commission is well known to all; but
take all these circumstances together, the
jeopardizing of our international relations,
the risking of internal good will and feeling,
this flagrant violation of the law openly con¬
fessed to aid a man who had done what the
War Department ostensibly abhorred, and
then added to these the mysterious disappear¬
ance of large sums of money, and I ask you
again, is there still any one who would assert
that in this whole case there is no ground for
suspicion that would justify the most searching
inquiry?
Ah, sir, I believe it is keenly enough felt
all over this Senate ; and it is for this reason,
let me say, that such violent efforts are made
to divert the minds of the Senate and the
people from the true question at issue; and as
the Senator from Indiana has just promised
us, he is going to follow up that strategy. Is
>not the reason obvious? A curious spectacle
indeed, sirl The Senator from Massachusetts
oharged with being a French claim agent or
with having no other object in view than to
work into the hands of a French claim agent 1
Sir, is not that en its very face absurd, ridicu¬
lous, monstrous? The Senator from Iowa told
us the other day, and his remarks on that
point were most sensible, that if France has a
elaim against any individual iu the United
States, there are the courts ; in the courts bet¬
ter evidence can be elicited than by a com¬
mittee of investigation, because the courts have
better means to elicit it; the courts are the
only place where redress can be had. And
now it is charged at the same time that a man
like the Senator from Massachusetts should
five himself up as the menial instrument of a
'rench claim agent to advance his business
here, through transactions in the Senate of
the United States, where no real redress can be
found.
I ask again, sir, is it not most absurd, most
ridiculous? But not only that, it is a most
humiliating spectacle. Here are Senators
standing up to ferret out corruption and vio¬
lation of our laws, and if they exist to have
the guilty parties brought to punishment. We
have reason to be proud of the purpose we are
pursuing. I repel with utter contempt the
imputation that, the Senator from Massachu¬
setts or myself should be in the service of any
individual to deprive American merchants of
their profits.
But the Senator from Indiana and the Sen¬
ator from New York resort in their—how shall
I call it?—distress, to other insinuations no less
flimsy. They pretend that we are making up
a case for Germany ; and yet the very same
Senator from Indiana has been so trium¬
phantly telling us here that Bismarck did not
care a farthing about this whole thing ; that
he is laughing it out of the way, and jokingly
remarking he could pick up these arms cheaper
on the banks of the Loire. And yet this same
mirthful statesman, according to the Senators
from New York and Indiana, is to be stirred up
by what we are here doing to set up claims
against the United States ! If he desired to
do so would he not have done so long ago,
upon the evidence known to all Europe ? But,
sir, another insinuation is thrown out which
might be called rather startling, and coming
as it does from two Senators of the United
States in the solemn deliberations of this body,
I cannot pass it by in silence. It is that dis
coveries made here might, injuriously to us,
affect the mind of the German Government
which is to preside in the high court of arbi¬
tration called to decide our disputes with Eng¬
land concerning the island of San Juan. Did
the Senator from Indiana and the Senator
from New York really know what they were
saying ? Did they know that they were throw¬
ing out a most foul and insulting imputation
against a great Government with whom we live
on terms of friendship? That they were charg¬
ing that foreign Government, which is to occupy
the exalted position of arbiter in an important
international dispute, with being accessible to
mean, miserable, personal motives? Sir, if
there is an insult offered to the German Gov¬
ernment, it is far more by the insinuation of
these Senators than by all the arms we have
sold.
Again, sir, it is asserted that this invest¬
igation is rather an unpatriotic proceeding,
because it might prejudice our chances as to
the Alabama claims before the high court of
21
arbitration at Geneva. Pardon me; this asser¬
tion appears to me still more flimsy than those
■which preceded it. Do we not know, have 1
not shown you here by quotations from official
documents and the European press, that all the
aggravating circumstances surrounding this
case are already before the world? Is there
anything disadvantageous to us that can pos¬
sibly be added to the testimony of the chief
of the commission of armament of France,
Mr. Le Cesne, who openly under oath declares
that he had an engagement with the Govern¬
ment of the United States by virtue of which
the arms were to be delivered free of charge
on board the vessels? Do you indulge in the
childish delusion that British statesmen have
not read these documents, that they are ignor¬
ant of these assertions, and that if any infer¬
ences are to be drawn from them, they have not
been drawn long ago and are understood on
the other side of the Atlantic as well as they
are here? Let me tell you, sir, if we want
the American case prejudiced, seriously preju¬
diced, then let this case remain just as it
stands ; then show a disinclination to invest¬
igate it or make this investigation so as
to justify suspicion abroad as to its char¬
acter.
But, sir, if you desire to set this Republic
right before the world, there is but one course
that remains to you. Show by a conscientious
and searching inquiry that the Government
of the United States has done nothing deserv¬
ing of censure ; or, if the investigation does
prove that duty and law have been violated,
then show yourself fair and honest enough
to disavow frankly by the legislative branch
of the Government the mischief wrought by
executive officers. There is no other alter¬
native. That is the only way in which, as the
matter now stands, our position can be fully
protected, and it is a bold, manly, and honest
way ; it is the only course worthy of this great
Republic. Those who by small quibbles try
to conceal what is visible to the whole world,
or by little technicalities to justify that which,
if it exists, is clearly wrong, those are the
men who endanger the interests and who com¬
promise the good name of this country. It is
only by brave, open, honest action that we
can save both. And therefore I am not afraid
to stand upon the floor of the American Sen¬
ate demanding inquiry and denouncing what
is wrong; for I remember well, as you must
remember it, that Cobden and Bright, when
boldly denouncing in the British Parliament
the course that was pursued by the Govern¬
ment, and predicting the consequences that
would follow a violation of neutral duties, were
far better patriots than those who let the
Alabama sail. They, too, were denounced
for the bold words they spoke ; but would not
England have avoided the perplexing diffi¬
culties still causing so much anxiety, would
not England now stand in a far more eqviable
position before the world had their prudent
and patriotic counsel been heeded? Let us
learn from their great example that fearless
honesty is of all policies the safest.
Mr. President, I must now allude to a
matter which is of a somewhat painful nature.
It is the amendment to this resolution brought
forward by the Senator from New York. It
reads as follows :
And that said committee also inquire and report
whether any member of the Senate, or any other
American citizen, is or has been in communication
or oollusion with the Government or authorities of
France, or with any emissary or spy thereof, in refer¬
ence to the said matters.
I am free to confess that I regret the intro¬
duction of this amendment. 1 regret it for
the gentleman who introduced it. First, let
me tell the Senator that as he and the Sen¬
ator from Indiana have already said things
insulting to the Government of Germany, so
he in this amendment puts forth a thing
scarcely less insulting to the Government of
France. It cannot be unknown to the Sen¬
ator that spies are used by respectable Gov¬
ernments only in times of war, and that when
we accuse a Government of sending into a
friendly country spies in time of peace, it may
well be taken as a charge severely reflecting
upon its character. I would for this reason
suggest to the Senator from New York the-
withdrawal of the word "spy."
But, sir, the meaning and purpose of the
amendment are easily understood. Nobody can
entertain any doubt as to the men to whom it
points. It points to the Senator from Massa¬
chusetts, [Mr. Sumner;] it points to me; and
it points to the Marquis de Ckambrun, whose
name has repeatedly been mentioned in this
debate. It suggests that collusion may have
taken place between these two Senators and
the agent of a foreign Power; undoubtedly, if
the word had any meaning at all, collusion of
an improper nature and for improper pur¬
poses. If the amendment has any sense, it
must have this.
Now, sir, I shall vote for this amendment,
and I will give Senators a piece of evidence
in advance. That evidence will facilitate their
understanding of this proposition.
As to the French emissary and spy alluded
to in this resolution, the Marquis de Cham-
brun, I am well acquainted with him. He is
a member of one of those old French families
who are known and remarkable less by their
riches than by the culture of their minds and
their honorable ambition. In fact, he is an
excellent representative member of that class ;
for knowing him well, as I do, I may say that
I have but seldom in my life met a man of
more cultured mind and of more varied inform¬
ation in many branches of knowledge than he
possesses. He is not, as the opprobrious terms
applied to him by the Senator from New York
might lead you to believe, an adventurer. His
social position in France is a most honorable
Onev ' I think the name of Alexis de Tocque-
Villeis well known in this country. He is that
great French writer whose philosophical mind,
has shed more light upon the nature and char¬
acter of our institutions than you will fiud in.
the writings of any other author living or dead.
It is a somewhat noteworthy circumstance that
the Marquis de Chambrun was one of the inti-
22
mate friends, I might say one of the favorites,
of the same Alexis de Tocqueville ; so much
so, indeed, that in what I might call his dying
letter, de Tocqueville referred in a most inter¬
esting manner to the marriage which had been
contemplated for the Marquis de Chambrun by
the de Tocqueville family, and which was
shortly before his death consummated. It was
the marriage of Mademoiselle de Corcelles with
the Marquis de Chambrun. The letter, which
forms part of the collection I now hold in my
hand, speaks of this marriage as "ouraffair,"
and a note appended to the letter states that
"de Tocqueville could properly call it 'our
affair,' for his high estimation of M. de Cham¬
brun made him anxiously forward this match.
Its conclusion was one of his last pleasures."
The other party to this marriage, Made¬
moiselle de Corcelles, now the Marquise de
Chambrun, is the great granddaughter of La
Fayette whose name is no less known and
highly revered in this country.
So, sir, it would appear that this gentleman
is, after all, not a waif accidentally thrown
upon our shores, not a mean, small adven¬
turer, who came here perhaps for the pur¬
pose of taking money out of other people's
pockets by doubtful means to put it into his
own. And even at this very moment some of
the gentlemen whom we have sent to the high
court of arbitration at Geneva are introducing
-themselves to the minister of foreign affairs of
the French republic, M. de Remusat, who is
connected in close family alliance with the
Marquis de Chambrun, with letters of recom¬
mendation from the same gentleman who yes¬
terday was denounced on this floor as a mean
claims agent and a spy.
Sir, there is the "spy' ' of the Senator from New
York. Seven years ago the Marquis de Cham¬
brun came to this country, then intrusted by
his Government with the mission of studying
the American tariff and of aiding the French
legation here in business connected with that
subject. Afterward his Government gave him
the office of legal counsel to the French lega¬
tion, and as such he is acting now.
I say I have known him long, making his
acquaintance in the year 1865. It always was
a pleasant one, and I may say that in the long
intercourse of years that acquaintance has
ripened into friendship founded upon mutual
esteem. So much have I to say about the
Marquis de Chambrun.
And now, sir, let me add that the Marquis
de Chambrun was not the man who gave me
that information about this case which made
it appear to my mind that an investigation was
necessary.
Mr. SUMNER. Nor to me either.
Mr. SCHURZ. Nor, as the Senator from
Massachusetts,says, to him either. Nor was it
any o[ted Frenchman or foreigner. I received
that inforaja'tion shortly before Christmas from
an American citizen of most respectable stand¬
ing ; and I will tell the Senator from New
York, furthermore, that having thus received
.certain knowledge which forced the impres¬
sion upon my mind that there was something
rotten in this affair, I did ask the Marquis de
Chambrun, of whom I learned quite accident¬
ally that he knew something about the matter,
why lie had not spoken of it to me before.
This was not months, but a very few weeks
ago, and then, sir, deeming it necessary that
violations of law and corrupt practices in this
Government should be inquired into, I not
only considered it my right, but my duty to
obtain information wherever I could get it,
and I received such information from him as
he was willing to give me.
And now let me tell the Senator from New
York also what that information was. The
only thing about this whole business that I
ever received from the Marquis de Chambrun,
not already published and open to the eyes of
the world, in newspapers and official docu¬
ments, was that letter of the Secretary of War
to the Secretary of State which figures in the
preamble to the resolution before us. When
he spoke to me about it, I asked him how he
could divulge that letter, and his reply was—
and knowing the man I think it will appear
so—that the letter was read to him by the
Secretary of War in the presence of several
gentlemen, and when, the next day, he asked
him whether he did not consider it a confi¬
dential document, the Secretary of War said
emphatically he did not, and wanted to have
it spread broadcast before the country. This
is my piece of evidence. There you have it
all. I give it willingly before the committee
of investigation can ask for it.
But what is the spirit of this amendment?
I have already said that I regretted it for the
sake of the gentleman, who had introduced
it. I do not know that I can make myself
intelligible to his mind or to his moral feeling
except in one way : suppose I had introduced
an amendment to this resolution providing
that the committee should inquire also whether
or not all those who had given Mr. Remington
letters of introduction to parties in France had
been actuated by corrupt motives? Does the
Senator know why I did not do it? Because I
considered it infinitely beneath me. [Applause
in the galleries.]
Mr. CONKLING. The Senator has chosen
for some purpose of his own to assume that
the amendment is aimed at three persons, and
three alone : himself, his friend from Mas¬
sachusetts, and the Marquis de Chambrun.
Without interrupting him at length, I beg to
say to him that I have no occasion at all for
the regret which he expresses on my account
for the introduction of this amendment. He
has promised me his support for it. I assure
him that I shall stand by it, and if after it is
adopted I have any other power over it, I
shall make it instrumental for the purpose for
which it was intended, which is, not to fasten
in any unfriendly spirit upon any or all of the
three persons the Senator has named any
imputation, but to ascertain with regard to all
men, (including those three men, I have no
hesitation in saying,) whether in truth by
indirect, illicit, unusual, irregular means this
proceeding has been trumped up or brought
23
out of that which the statute road yesterday,
and good morals and convenience also, con¬
demn as irregular correspondence and com¬
munication between American citizens and
foreign agents.
One other word, and I have done. In draw¬
ing the amendment I had not the statute
before me, nor had I seen it for a long time. I
drew the amendment from a faded memory of
the act of 1799. If the honorable Senator
finds in it offense of phrase, before we vote
upon it I shall be very glad to have him re¬
duce it, or to reduce it myself, to those pro¬
portions and to that scope which will properly
embrace the inquiry and the information I
Mr. SCHURZ. Ah, yes, sir. I have no
doubt that what the Senator intimated to us
just now is perfectly true. He is in earnest in
this matter.
Mr. CONKLTNG. No doubt of it.
Mr. SCHURZ. I have never doubted it.
It looks like him. [Laughter.]
There is one peculiar feature about this
matter, however, to which I desire to call the
attention of the Senate. The Senator has
referred to an old statute of 1799 which he
yesterday held up before our eyes. What is
that statute? It threatens with imprisonment
and fine citizens of the United States who
have any communication or correspondence
with any agent of a foreign Government by
which either the measures of the Government
of the Uuited States are defeated or an in¬
fluence is exercised upon the action of that
foreign Government.
Sir, this statute held up before our eyes in
this ease, is it not glorious 1 Here stand
two American Senators, Senators not entirely
unknown to the country, Senators whose rec¬
ord is not entirely devoid of patriotism and
service, Senators whose only aim and end is
to investigate the abuses of the Government
and violations of the laws. Ah, sir, witness
this significant spectacle! These Senators are
met by one of the spokesmen of the Admin¬
istration, flourishing the statute in his hands,
threatening them with fine and imprisonment!
Indeed a most glorious spectacle! Let it be
known in every nook and corner of this land,
let the news go forth all over the vast bounda¬
ries of this Republic, that he who is in earnest,
setting his face against those in power with
fearless purpose to detect fraud, to punish
violations of the law, has by "the powers that
be ' ' opened to him the prospect of a du ngeon 1
Why, sir, I never thought that the Adminis¬
tration was in a condition quite so desperate
as that. [Laughter.] Things are indeed de¬
veloping very fast. How long will it be when
you cannot look for testimony even against
Leet and Stocking, the Knights of the General
Order, without having some statute dug up that
will punish you for conspiracy?
But, sir, if the Senator from New York
thinks that he can in this way throw fear into
my soul, he will easily discover that he is
mistaken. On the paths of duty that I have
walked I have seen men much more danger¬
ous than he; and before a thousand of them
my heart would not quail. Ay, sir, I will
vote for his amendment, vote for it with all
the scorn which it deserves.
Another word to the Senators from Indiana
and New York. For want of better argument
they have been telling us that this resolution
is meant to affect the German vote. I think
the Senator from Indiana knows well that if it
had been desired.to affect the German vote at
a certain juncture when feeling ran high,
and when it would not have required much to
set it in fiercer flames, and when I used every
influence in my power, little as it was, to have
those sales of arms stopped and to have at the
same time that feeling soothed, he knows very
well that if the German vote was affected, it
was by the things that were done and not by
any agitation. Had I known then what I know
now about this business, (and I am free to say
■that then I knew nothing but that arms were
sold and went, cargo after cargo, to France,)
I might indeed have acted differently.
The two Senators are praising the Germans
very highly—not too highly, indeed. He who
listened to them on Friday and yesterday might
have formed the conclusion that they were
decidedly "sweet" on the German-American
citizens. [Laughter.] I think their sweetness
would have been much more appreciable had
those two Senators, than whom there are no
others more influential with this Administra¬
tion, gone at the time when the arms were sold
and used their burning eloquence and their pow¬
erful efforts to have the mischief stopped ; for
their power was far greater than my own and
that of the Senator from Massachusetts^ who
were then considered as being in opposition to
the Administration. Yes, sir, they are rather
sweet on the Germans now, although certainly
not too much so. They say that the Germans are
a liberty-loving, intelligent, patriotic people,
all of which is true. The German-Americans
love liberty; they are devoted to republican
principles ; but let me tell Senators there is
another thing to which they are no less de¬
voted, and that is honest government.
Both Senators have taken the trouble to
inform this body that no man in this country
owns the German-born citizens of this Republic.
That is most certainly true, and I am proud
of it, for I am one of them ; and I am sure
nobody owns me. [Applause.]
No, sir, no man owns the German-American
citizens of this country. No politician owns
them, no Senator does; not even the President
of the United States; but least of all are the
Germans of this country owned by that class
of politicians who desperately cling to the
skirt of power through whatever mire it
may drag them. [Applause in the galle¬
ries.] Least of all do they belong to that class
of politicians who are ready to cover up any
abuse, to justify any wrong, when the discov¬
ery, however useful to the public interest,
might displease the Administration or injure
the party. Least of all do they belong to those
politicians who will sacrifice truth and right,
and justice, and honor, and public interest to
the mere advantage of a party.
No, sir, the Germans do not belong to any¬
body, and I am proud to say so. As one man
they fought the robber-nest of Tammany in
New York, and I trust you will find them in
solid array fighting every Tammany, small or
great, wherever and on whatever side they may
find it.
An attempt has again been made to dismiss
this whole inquiry by a crack of the party
whip. Methinks those who make that attempt
grievously mistake the spirit of the times.
That popular voice which demands honest and
pure government speaks far louder than the
crack of any party whip. The American peo¬
ple have heard that Crack before. They heard
it at the commencement of this session, when
what the Senator from New York was yester¬
day pleased to call "the senatorial cabal"
stood up here demanding an investigation into
the abuses of the Government, and met with the
reply that there were no wrongs to be righted,
and that those who insisted upon it were mere
mischievous plotters and base traitors to party
and country. That was the cry; and yet when
the inquiry was had, and only a corner of that
vail was lifted which covers the public ser¬
vice, the reeking odor of corruption tortured
the very nostrils of the nation. Do you think
the people have forgotten it? They remem¬
ber very well that iniquity was exposed and
the door was opened to reform because there
were some men who stood not in fear of the
crack of the party whip.
And now we hear this storm of cant and
denunciation again. Gentlemen, do not de¬
ceive yourselves. The eyes and the ears of
the people are open, and they have heard and
seen already much which they will remember.
No party cry will much longer befog their
senses and stupefy their minds. You may try
to throw suspicion upon the motives of those
who attack corruption, but it will be in vain.
The people understand that when motives are
called into question, the motives of those who
are serving as the henchmen of power, are no
less open to doubt than the motives of men
who spurn to seek its favors at the expense of
an honorable independence and their convic¬
tions of duty. Let me tell gentlemen that we
knew the road to patronage just as well as
others ; we did not walk it sacrificing that
which was dearer to us.
Sir, the crack of the party whip has lost its
power in these days of ours. Mere party cant
lies stale and nauseating upon the stomach of
the , , le. If you think that the movement
which i now growing all over this land is a
mere plot of politicians, you will soon dis¬
cover your mistake. It is a new awakening
of the public conscience. It is the reaction
against the easy political morals and the spirit
of jobbery which have grown and been devel¬
oped in times of war and of great political
excitement. It is an earnest uprising for an
honest and pure government. You cannot
repel that with party discipline ; you cannot
baffle it with penal statutes. It may be a mere
commotion to-day ; undertake to resist it, and
you will find it a great political revolution to¬
morrow. Whatever others may do, I have
taken my lot. It is to this cause that my
heart is earnestly devoted, and with this cause
I will stand or fall.
Printed at the Office of
the Congressional Globe.