It is for Congress to determine whether this proscription shall continue in the courts of the United States, or, in other words, if a local rule, barbarous, irrational, and unjust, born of Slavery, shall be allowed to exist yet longer under the national sanction.

THE MISSION TO BELGIUM.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSULAR AND DIPLOMATIC APPROPRIATION BILL, MARCH 15, 1864.

MARCH 14th, the Senate having under consideration the bill making appropriations for the consular and diplomatic service, Mr. Sumner, in behalf of the Committee on Foreign Relations, moved the following amendment :

"That the President may, in his discretion, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to the kingdom of Belgium, who shall receive no higher compensation than is now allowed to a minister resident."

The amendment was opposed by Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, to whom Mr. Sumner replied.1

March 15th, the debate was continued, and Mr. Sumner spoke several times. In reply to Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, he said :—

MR.

R. PRESIDENT, — There seems a perpetual disposition in this debate to change the issue. I stated that the issue was how we shall best give efficiency to our representation in Europe. Now the Senator from Kentucky says that the issue is how we shall give our minister at Belgium an opportunity to get into a little better company. That is his imagination. Surely it is not the way the Committee directed me to state the case. It is not the way in which I have presented it at any time in this discussion. I hope that Senators will

1 Congressional Globe, 38th Cong. 1st Sess., pp. 1094-1096.

not be diverted from the real issue, which is simply, Will the public interests be promoted by this change? The Committee answer in the affirmative, and in my humble opinion the Committee is right.

MR. DAVIS. Will the Chairman specify in what respect the public interest will be promoted, in what respect the efficiency of our representative at the court of Brussels will be increased, and in what respect the increase of his grade will render this Government and its interests more acceptable to Leopold?

MR. SUMNER. In the same way, Sir, that the public interests are promoted at London, and also at Paris, by a plenipotentiary instead of a minister resident.

MR. DAVIS. According to that rule, we ought to have a first-class minister at every court in Europe and at every government in South America, and everywhere else where we send diplomatic representatives.

not

MR. SUMNER. No, the Senator will pardon me, at every court in Europe, but only at those where we have considerable interests. It all pivots upon that. What are our relations with different courts? With considerable interests, we should be represented accordingly. With inconsiderable interests only, there is no reason to raise the mission. We have first-class missions, according to our scale of rank, at London, Paris, Madrid, Turin, Vienna, Berlin, and St. Petersburg. And why?

MR. DAVIS. Will the honorable Chairman tell me the relative proportion between the commercial interests of the United States and England, the United States and France, and the United States and Belgium ?

MR. SUMNER. There are interests of all kinds, commercial and political, differing in different countries. I need not remind the Senator that our interests with England and France are largely superior to those with any other European power,

-much above those with Belgium; but if you ask me what other European power I should place next after those two, I should hesitate, in the condition of our affairs at this precise moment, to place any before Belgium.

MR. DAVIS. Would you not place Russia before Belgium?

MR. SUMNER. I would not exaggerate, but I am obliged to acknowledge, in reply to the Senator, that I should hesitate at this moment to say that even Russia was so situated as to make our minister there so important to our present interests as our minister at Belgium. In one word, our minister at Brussels has more to do than our minister at St. Petersburg. Look I pray you, at the geographical position of Belgium, its thronging, active population, its commerce, its manufactures. But countries derive character and even power from their rulers, and this is the happy advantage of Belgium, especially in her relations with us. You all know that her sovereign is able to exercise a persuasive influence over international affairs, entirely out of proportion to the extent of territory he so wisely governs, and this influence has been exerted at a critical moment in our favor.

I would not say a word in disparagement of any other power. But it would be difficult, after England and France, to name any power which, all things considered, furnishes at this moment such opportunites of usefulness in the public service to any American plenipotentiary as are afforded by Belgium. Would the Senator compare our interests there with those in Prussia, one of the most respectable and highly educated courts of the globe, or with Austria, great in military power and physical resources? At Berlin and Vienna there is less for our ministers to do, and less of opportunity, than at

Brussels. The geographical position of these capitals explains this difference, at least in part.

Or, if you please, take the government of Spain, representing that great Castilian monarchy on which it was said that the sun never set. A Senator whispers

True; but you have

that this was said some time ago. in Spain the old Castilian pride and faith born of that immense empire; and yet our interests with Spain at this moment, or, in other words, our opportunities in that kingdom, are not more important than in the smaller kingdom of Belgium, which the sun covers in much less than a single hour.

Then there is the new-born kingdom of Italy, where we have also a plenipotentiary. Does any one suppose, that, if you put aside that sympathy which every American feels for this interesting power, newly dedicated to Liberty, our interests there at this moment are equal to those with Belgium? Here again geography explains the difference.

There only remains in this review, to which the Senator invites me, the empire of Russia, bound by many years of history to amity with the United States, and absolutely fixed as our friend beyond any jar of diplomacy or any jealousy of growing power. But our commercial relations with this extensive country are inferior to those with Belgium; and St. Petersburg is further removed from the great centre of observation than Brussels. The Emperor of Russia is illustrious from a transcendent act, for which his name will be blessed; but his assured regard for us takes away all solicitude as to his policy, while the complications of present questions in which he is involved render his relations to other European governments less intimate than those of King