CHAPTER XXXVIII

THE CLOSING MONTHS IN THE SENATE

THE third session of the Thirty-seventh Congress was not a garden of oratory. Seldom, perhaps, have so few important speeches been made in an equal time in either House; clearly, because the great issues of the past had gone beyond the stage of debate. The time for talking was over. Men of different minds were for the most part segregated under different and widely separated governments, and each of these governments had before it the practical measures of the physical struggle for establishment of its fundamental principles. The United States Senate, at least, found no special need of restating the underlying theories of the Constitution to its own members, and on matters of action (with the possible exception of the Conscription Bill) the differences of view were chiefly confined to matters of detail.

The most important address contained in the records of the session is the President's message, submitted December 1, 1862,1 centered about the idea advanced, as Mr. Lincoln reminded the Congress, in his inaugural "the total inadequacy of disunion as a remedy for the differences between the people of the two sections." "One section believes slavery is right, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be extended. . . . Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We cannot remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them." "There is no line, straight or crooked," he added, "suitable for a national boundary on which to divide. . . . Our national life springs not from our permanent part; not from the land we inhabit; not from our national homestead. There is no 1 Senate Journal, pp. 6-23.

possible severing of this, but would multiply and not mitigate evils among us. In all its adaptations and aptitudes, it demands union and abhors separation. In fact it would, ere long, force reunion, however much of blood and treasure the separation might have cost.

"Our strife pertains to ourselves-to the passing generation of men; and it can, without convulsion, be hushed forever with the passing of one generation."

That was a doctrine in harmony with ideals that Wilmot himself had expressed-the ideal of "paying as you go," meeting in each generation the obligations that generation had incurred, and not passing on the debts of the fathers for the children to pay, whether those debts be financial, economic or spiritual. And this seems to have been the task to which Senate and House addressed themselves with determined, if not wholly undisturbed, mind. For the segregation just spoken of was not quite complete. The United States Senate still seated some men whose sympathies were with the Administration at Richmond rather than that at Washington, and the increasing solidarity of this copperhead group-not strong enough to work serious mischief, not daring enough to make too open a stand, but still cohesive and purposeful enough to form a definitely recognizable figure in the picture—this was the secondary noticeable feature of the session.

Wilmot's course during these last months of his service in the national legislature was an epitome of the whole: little speechmaking, diligent attention to and support of all Administration measures and all measures for carrying on the war to the swiftest possible ending, and abrupt suppression of the attempts at obstruction or the petty harassing attacks which formed the tactics of the opposition group.

His service in commitee, where of course much of the original construction and after-shaping of the Senate legislative program was carried on, was further extended. To the work on foreign relations, pensions, and claims, carried forward from the preceding sessions, was added, January 19, member

ship on the committee on naval affairs, in succession to Richard S. Field, of New Jersey.2

He took the floor during the consideration of the Revenue Bill in an effort to change what he took to be an injustice and inequality in the licensing of taverns, including all the little hostelries of that period throughout the country. By the coincidence or cumulative imposition of several different license taxes (some of which were graduated according to the rental paid for the establishment, and some level over all places, small or large), the smallest crossroad inn was subject to an annual tax of $35, besides the State license fees. "I cannot understand," urged Wilmot, "the propriety of imposing the same tax or license duty on a hotel like the Continental at Philadelphia, or the Fifth Avenue at New York, that you would impose on a tavern situated in the country at a crossroad, where some accommodation is absolutely necessary, where really they do not do a business of $200 a year. Persons call there occasionally, and they are necessary. I know many such in my country, where the public interest is subserved by the existence of such a tavern."

3

Poor little country hotels, the only ones offering hospitality of any sort to the traveler among the Pennsylvania hills-no doubt Wilmot in his strenuous hand-to-hand campaigning had known many such. And as he pointed out, under the burden of such taxes they would be closed up, in which case no revenue at all would result; or worse yet, they would be compelled to launch out in liquor selling and peddling outside, to make up their expenses. "It is neither consistent with the morals of the community nor with the interest of the country in regard to revenue," he insisted, in his unsuccessful effort to have the section reconsidered.*

His next conspicuous participation was in the debate of a joint resolution directing the Secretary of the Navy not to

2 Senate Journal, p. 119.

3 Cong. Globe, Thirty-seventh Congress, 3rd session, pp. 110, III. 4 Cong. Globe, p. 110.

receive and accept the title to League Island, near Philadelphia, unless Congress should otherwise direct. The site had been offered by the city of Philadelphia, for Navy-yard purposes; but the advantages of New London, for such an establishment on the north Atlantic coast, were being strongly pressed, and in his perplexity over the "conflicting reports and the conditions annexed to the law authorizing the Secretary to receive and accept League Island" (conditions as to title and desirability on technical grounds), that official "thought it more respectful to delay action until Congress should convene." He added that "as neither the harbor of New London nor the waters of Narragansett Bay are adapted to the purpose and wants of an iron Navy, whatever may be their advantages in other respects, and as League Island has the requisites of fresh water, security from external enemies, and proximity to iron and coal, I propose to receive and accept for the Government the munificent donation of the city of Philadelphia, unless Congress shall otherwise direct."

Wilmot's argument was brief, and the substance of it is summarized in his first paragraph and his conclusion:

I do not desire to detain the Senate, and shall detain them but a very few moments. The senator from Connecticut (Mr. Foster) told us that this was a question of economy; that the expense of accepting the offer made by the city of Philadelphia to the Government of League Island, would involve such an amount of expenditure on the part of the Government as would make it impolitic for us to accept their offer. I submit to Senators that it is not a question of expenditure. It is not a question as to how much it will require the Government to expend in filling up and making permanent the marshy lands connected with League Island. It is a question of permanent value to the country. We are now called upon to establish a Navy yard, not of the ordinary character; not a yard for the building of wooden vessels of war; but to establish a yard for the construction, safe-keeping and preservation of ironclad vessels of war. That is what we now require, and that only; and whether it will cost $1,000,000 or

$5,000,000 to give to League Island the necessary facilities for this purpose, is really not a very important question to us. The great question is, what will be its value when established? Will it be secure from a foreign enemy? Will League Island give security to us? So far as relates to this great consideration, there can be no choice between the two places mentioned—between New London and League Island. The one is upon the sea, and is within the reach of long-range guns from the sea, and could be battered down by vessels of war from the sea, and is within a distance of three or four miles from the sea. The other is a distance of some seventy or eighty miles from the ocean, and rendered as secure as it is possible to render a Navy yard.

Then the remaining consideration is-and those are the only two considerations that ought to control this question, or to influence the action of the Senators-are the waters of League Island adapted to ironclad vessels, and will the waters of New London destroy ironclad vessels? There is but one answer to give to that question: in the one case the water is fresh, in the other it is salt; one destroys iron vessels, in the other they can ride with perfect security and safety.5

The Senate passed the resolution against acceptance, then reconsidered their action, and at the end of the session, left the choice still indeterminate.

Wilmot's other recorded remarks-the last, with one exception, that he made on the floor of the Senate, were in connection with the Conscription Bill, and more especially the exemptions provided for in the second section of that act. Dixon, of Connecticut, had offered an amendment adding "the only son of a widow, wholly or in part dependent on him for support." Wilmot rose to make the amendment read, "the only son liable to military duty, of a widow wholly or in part dependent," etc. He pointed out that "she might have two or three young sons who could by no possibility contribute to

5 Cong. Globe, p. 497.

This later utterance was his declaration, Feb. 28, 1863, that southern officers who resigned from the Union army on account of the emancipation proclamation ought to be court-martialed. Cong. Globe, p. 1387.