the way from Wisconsin or from South Carolina-may be convenient, and to certain persons may seem to be necessary. Throughout all time alleged necessity has been the apology for wrong.

"So spake the Fiend, and with necessity,

The tyrant's plea, excused his devilish deeds."

Such, according to Milton, was the practice among the fallen angels.

Let me be understood as admitting the power of the Senate, where it is essential to its own protection or the protection of its privileges, but not where it is required merely in aid of legislation. The difference is worldwide between what is required for protection and what is required merely for aid; and here I part from Senators with whom I am proud on other matters to act. They hold that this great power may be exercised, not merely for the protection of the Senate, but also for its aid in framing a bill or in maturing any piece of legislation. To aid a committee of this body merely in a legislative purpose, a citizen, guilty of no crime, charged with no offence, presumed to be innocent, honored and beloved in his neighborhood, may be seized, handcuffed, kidnapped, and dragged away from home, hurried across State lines, brought here as criminal, and then thrust into jail. The mere statement of the case shows the dangerous absurdity of such a claim. "Nephew," said Algernon Sidney in prison, on the night before his execution, "I value not my own life a chip; but what concerns me is, that the law which takes away my life may hang every one of you, whenever it is thought convenient." It was a dangerous law that aroused the indignation of the English patriot. But in the present

case there is not even a law, nothing but an order made by a fractional part of Congress.

There are Senators here who pretend to find in the Constitution the right to carry slaves into the National Territories. That such Senators should also find in the same Constitution the right to make a slave of Mr. Hyatt or Mr. Sanborn, or of anybody else, merely to aid legislation, is not astonishing; but I am at a loss how Senators who love Freedom can find any such right in the Constitution.

I say nothing now of precedents from the British Parliament, for they are all more or less inapplicable. We live under a written Constitution, with certain specified powers; and all these are restricted by the Tenth Amendment, declaring that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." But even British precedents have found a critic at home, in the late Chief Justice of England, Lord Denman, pronouncing judgment in the great case of Stockdale v. Hansard, and also in the words. of an elegant and authoritative historian, whose life has been passed in one or the other of the two Houses of Parliament: I refer to Lord Mahon, now Earl Stanhope, who, in his History of England, thus remarks:

"I may observe, in passing, that throughout the reign of George the Second the privileges of the House of Commons flourished in the rankest luxuriance. . . . . So long as men in authority are enabled to go beyond the law, on the plea of their own dignity and power, the ONLY limit to their encroachments will be that of the public endurance." 2

19 Adolphus and Ellis, 1.

2 Lord Mahon, History of England, Chap XXXI. Vol. IV. p. 20.

Nothing can be more true than this warning. But Lord Brougham has expressed himself in words yet stronger, and, if possible, still more applicable to the present case.

"All rights," says this consummate orator, "are now utterly disregarded by the advocates of Privilege, excepting that of exposing their own short-sighted impolicy and thoughtless inconsistency. Nor would there be any safety for the people under their guidance, if unhappily their powers of doing mischief bore any proportion to their disregard of what is politic and just."

With these observations I quit this question, anxious only that the recent Usurpation of the Senate may not be drawn into a precedent hereafter.

During Mr. Hyatt's protracted imprisonment, Mr. Sumner visited him constantly, and thus became familiar with the condition of the jail. This led to the introduction of the following resolution, March 13, 1860.

"Resolved, That the Committee on the District of Columbia be directed to consider the expediency of doing something to improve the condition of the common jail of the city of Washington."

Before the vote on the resolution was taken, Mr. Sumner remarked that he had visited the jail, and found it neither more nor less than a mere human sty; and since the Senate had undertaken to send a fellowcreature there, he thought that the least it could do was to see that something was done to improve its condition.

1 Privilege of Parliament, Introduction: Speeches of Henry Lord Brougham upon Questions relating to Public Rights, Duties, and Interests, Vol. IV. p. 353.

ABOLITION OF CUSTOM-HOUSE OATHS.

RESOLUTION IN THE SENATE, MARCH 15, 1860.

MR. SUMNER submitted the following resolution, which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to.

R

ESOLVED, That the Committee on Finance be instructed to consider whether the numerous custom-house oaths, now administered under Acts of Congress, may not with propriety be abolished, and a simple declaration be substituted therefor.

19*

BOSTON COMMON, AND ITS EXTENSION.

LETTER TO GEORGE H. SNELLING, ESQ., OF BOSTON
MARCH 26, 1860.

'Back Bay Be

MR. SNELLING interested himself much with regard to the disposition of the lands west of Boston Common, known as the " Lands," and owned by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. yond a general desire to keep them open, his special aim was to have a tidal lake, bordered by avenues with trees. In this effort he was aided particularly by John A. Andrew, afterwards Governor. Other citizens, including the venerable Josiah Quincy, Professor Agassiz, and Dr. Edward Jarvis, wrote letters, published at the time, and used before the Committee of the Legislature to whom the matter was referred. Among these was the following.

MY

SENATE CHAMBER, March 26, 1860. Y DEAR SIR, I am grateful for your timely -I intervention to save our Boston Common, by keeping it open to the western breezes and the setting sun. It is not pleasant, I know, to separate in opinion from those about us; but your object is so disinterested, so pure, so benevolent, so truly in the nature of a charity, that all, even though differing in details, must be glad that you have come forward.

I know well the value of water in scenery. Perhaps nothing else adds so much to the effect of a landscape, which, indeed, without water often seems lifeless, or, as was once said by a valued friend of mine, "like a face without eyes." Boston, from its peninsular situation,