Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, moved to amend the resolution by striking out the words “by an enemy of Emancipation,” and advocated his amendment in a speech. Mr. Sumner replied, that it was impossible for the Senate to ascertain through a commission the precise facts in the case,--that it was an historic case, to be determined by historic evidence,--that the same testimony or report from which we learned the attempt to take the life of the Emperor disclosed also the character of the assassin,--and that doubtless the House of Representatives, from which the resolution came, acted on this authority. The amendment was rejected, and the resolution was passed without a division.
Hon. Gustavus V. Fox, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, was sent to Russia in the ironclad Miantonomoh, charged with the communication of this resolution to the Emperor. He was received with much distinction and hospitality. The visit was subsequently described in a work entitled “Narrative of the Mission to Russia, in 1866, of the Hon. Gustavus Vasa Fox, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, from the Journal and Notes of J. F. Loubat, edited by John D. Champlin, Jr., 1873.” The mission was entertained brilliantly by Prince Galitzin at Moscow, August 26th (14th), and it is said that “among the invited guests at the dinner was the emancipated serf, Gvozdeff, the mayor of the commune.”[28]
POWER OF CONGRESS TO PROVIDE AGAINST CHOLERA FROM ABROAD.
SPEECHES IN THE SENATE, ON A JOINT RESOLUTION TO PREVENT THE INTRODUCTION OF CHOLERA INTO THE PORTS OF THE UNITED STATES, MAY 9, 11, AND 15, 1866.
May 9th, the Senate having under consideration a joint resolution, which had passed the House of Representatives, to prevent the introduction of cholera into the ports of the United States, Mr. Sumner said:--
MR. PRESIDENT,--I must say, that, reflecting upon this question, I find that I travelled with my friend from Maine [Mr. MORRILL] through his inquiries and his doubts, but it was only to arrive substantially at the conclusion of my friend from Vermont [Mr. EDMUNDS]. I thought that the criticism of my friend from Maine was in many respects, at least on its face, just. I went along with him, and yet I hesitated in adopting the conclusion he seemed to intimate. I doubt, if we proceed under the House resolution, whether we shall do the work thoroughly. I doubt whether that resolution can be made sufficiently effective. Indeed, I may go further, and say I am satisfied that it will not be efficient for the occasion. We then have the substitute proposed by our own Committee. Against that there is certainly the remark to be made, that it is novel. I am not aware that any such proposition has ever before been brought forward; but certainly it has in its favor the great argument of efficiency. Yet the question remains behind, to which the Senator from Maine has directed attention,--whether this proposition is not something more than even a novelty,--whether it is not a departure from just principles. I am not inclined to say that it is anything more than a novelty. I admit that it is such. It does invest the Government with large and perhaps unprecedented powers, in order to meet a peculiar case, where a stringent remedy must be applied.