U. S. Senate Speeches and Remarks of Carl Schurz/Sales of Arms to French Agents 1

The Senate resumed the consideration of the following resolution submitted by Mr. on the 12th instant:

Mr. HARLAN resumed the floor and concluded the speech commenced by him yesterday. [It will be found in the Appendix.]

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. President, I cannot vote for the preamble to this resolution, and I am at a loss to see how any other Senator can do so; and the resolution I consider entirely uncalled for.

This is a most anomalous and unusual proceeding. If it did not come from one whose patriotism I do not question, I should say that it was a proceeding hostile to the interests of the country. It is anomalous in this: with no complaint from Prussia, although the matter involved in the resolution occurred in 1870, we are referred to telegraphic dispatches, to scraps from the correspondence of brokers,

and to recondite authorities, which are translated before us from the French for international law, for the purpose of showing that our nation has violated her neutral obligations to a friendly Power. An effort is made to establish a case which, if successful, authorizes Prussia to demand of our nation apology, indemnity, and damages.

Sir, to effect that result is no part of my mission to this Chamber; such is not my duty. If I were here a representative of Prussia, I would not feel authorized to make this case against the United States unless I were so directed by my Government. And I do not understand that even the Prussian minister complains of any violation of the neutral obligations of this country toward his nation. It is a volunteer movement on the part of the American Senate to make a case against our own country.

And, Mr. President, on what a trifling cobble-house statement this charge against the country is founded! Let me look at this preamble for another purpose than that for which my friend from Iowa has referred to it. The first position taken is this:

A telegram! From whom does it come? It is anonymous; it does not come from the French Government, and therefore should not be respected by us. It does not appear to whom it is directed, and as it is not directed to our Government we should not notice it. The Senate of the United States is asked to base most important action and to make a case against our own country because an anonymous telegram has reached here which refers to a resolution! Why not wait for the resolution? If the French Government has any right to ask our action, why does not the French minister present his demand?

The telegram says that American officials are suspected. By whom they are suspected, whether by the French Government or by individuals, does not appear. Certainly they are not suspected by us; and it is most illogical for us to base our action here on suspicions that exist there. I might as well eat a dinner because some man in France is hungry. [Laughter.] I have heard of an old gentleman who, during the season of the cholera, used to drink freely of brandy and water whenever his wife had any unpleasant feelings, [Laughter;] but I never thought it was very logical. Quite as much so, however, as for us to base grave action in this country on suspicion entertained in France.

Look at the next specification of the preamble:

What is that, sir, but the mere brag of the employé to make himself appear a great man to his employer, just as lobbyists write home that they have brought the strongest influence to bear upon Senator A or Senator B, and that the thing will work finely? The very preamble itself shows that Mr. Squire's statement is incorrect, for the Secretary of War, in the letter recited below, says that in the middle of October, 1870, he had determined that he would not receive a bid from Remington &amp; Sons. It was on the 15th of October he had made this determination; but Mr. Squire, on the 8th of October, writes that he had this prodigious influence at work. His influence did not turn out to be very potential, for his employer seems to be the only man in all the world to whom the American officials had determined they would not sell arms.

The next statement of the preamble is the

letter of Remington. What is there in that? The point of the letter is that the Government had agreed to have cartridges manufactured to be sold with the arms. If the sale of the arms was unlawful, making the cartridges was an aggravation of the wrong; but if the sale of the arms was lawful, the making of cartridges in order to effect the sale was also lawful. If a man steals a horse and sells him it may be some aggravation that he sells the stolen blanket and halter with him; but if he sell a horse that he owns, honestly selling the blanket and halter with him does not change the character of the transaction.

The next point in the preamble is the letter from the Secretary of War, in which he says that he sold these arms to Richardson and had the cartridges manufactured in order to effect the sale.

That is the testimony, and that is all of it. Those four points constitute the whole foundation upon which this superstructure is reared!

Now, we come to the original suggestions of the mover:

Here we find a most important inaccuracy. The whole point of this specification is that Richardson was, as is here stated, &ldquo;the known attorney&rdquo; of Remington &amp; Sons, the French agents. This important fact the preamble asserts appears by the preceding communications, and these communications show no such fact, neither do they tend to show it.

Then the next specification runs thus:

Why, Mr. President, we are practical men, acquainted with affairs, and are not novices. Did it ever occur that one who was about to pilfer and abstract $1,700,000 made the entry in his books that he had received the full sum for which he was to account, the $10,000,000, and then, after he had abstracted the money, put it in the forefront of his report that he had received $10,000,000, and sowed the report broadcast over the country, so that every man who could read should have the full proof of his guilt? Addressed to men acquainted with life the charge of guilt is an absurdity. This charge has been sufficiently refuted, however.

The preamble next asserts that &mdash;

As has been properly inquired by my friend from Iowa, does the standing of American officials, the integrity of our leading men, depend upon the correctness with which accounts are kept in France? If so, it becomes the officers of this nation, who would guard their integrity or reputation, to have some expert accountant on hand to see that the French accounts are accurately kept. The difference in these two accounts only show that those who sold to France obtained for the arms more than our Government sold them for.

Then comes the last specification; and permit me to say that I cannot conceive how any Senator, of either political party, or even the mover of the resolution, call ever vote for a resolution containing this allegation:

What Senator is willing to make his record that the incidents to which I have referred, and that is all of it, seriously compromise the good name of his country? Do we hold that name so cheap, our country's honor so light, that we will make such a charge against it on such grounds? To maintain that honor, one clarion note would bring half a million stalwart men around this capital, who, leaving their homes, their wives, and their children, would stand ready to have the land furrowed again with their graves. We cannot vote that the fair name of our country is seriously compromised, or that her honor is violated. I hope at the end of this session to return to my home; but were I to give such a vote, the &ldquo;boys in blue&rdquo; of my town, who have changed their uniform for the livery of industry, with their overalls and leather aprons on, would meet me in the street and demand by what authority I entered a cognovit, or confessed judgment against the honor of their country; that they had once tendered their lives to maintain it, and were ready now, if needs be, to die for it. Sir, they have little of this world's goods, but the nation's honor is their jewel, and they would visit with scorn and condemnation the man who dares to trample that jewel under his feet.

No, sir, the fair name of America is not seriously compromised by these incidents, is not compromised at all, and I do not believe that there will be found many Senators of either party so to declare.

Mr. President, it would be grateful to the American people, and would harmonize with their estimate of the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, if he would even now withdraw that preamble.

I do not, sir, adopt for my maxim of duty the motto &ldquo;my country, my country right or wrong;&rdquo; but I do feel at perfect liberty to abstain from making to Prussia the suggestion that we have injured her. I feel at perfect liberty to abstain from inciting her to dissatisfaction and possible resentment. I feel no obligation upon me to suggest to foreign nations that we have violated rights when such violation has never occurred to them.

And more, sir: there are in our country hundreds of thousands of citizens, valued and honored, who claim the country which this preamble necessarily implies that we have injured as their fatherland. It is the home of their homes; there sacred memories and fond associations still linger; and they are naturally sensitive as to any injustice to their native land; and I would hesitate long before I said a word or gave a vote calculated to excite the animosities of our adopted citizens against our country or its Government. There is in this case no ground for such animosity.

But, sir, let the investigation proceed. Let it be full, speedy, and thorough. Let it be before an unbiased and impartial tribunal. No one accused can ever afford to be tried by his accuser or a biased court. It is because of this consideration that I should be unwilling to have the resolution referred to a special committee, as by parliamentary courtesy the chairman of this special committee would be one who in the preamble has expressed his convictions against the propriety of conduct of those to whom the investigation relates. I trust the resolution will be so amended that the reference will be to the committee created for the purpose of such investigations.

Fraud, too, is to be investigated. Sir, charges of fraud have become epidemic in this country, and the people are very susceptible. That condition of things will not long continue. A pleasant day in June, about the meridian of Philadelphia, will see this malady disappear, and we shall be again a harmonious brotherhood. In the meantime, I sympathize with the Senator from Massachusetts nearest to me [Mr. ] in the remarks which he made yesterday deprecating the habit which exists here, in the press, and in the land,

unnecessarily to censure and criticise our public men, often unjustly detracting from their character. I believe that our Government is much weakened by this practice. Charges are made against those in official position which if made by a foreign country would sever friendly relations. These official positions, when sought for the purpose of higher usefulness and a more enlarged service to mankind, are objects worthy the ambition of the youth of our country, and should be held up to them as objects to be desired, and it is a crime unnecessarily to tarnish that prize. I believe that we must have some faith in the people. We must learn to say &ldquo;no&rdquo; to many demands for investigations. The people of this country believe that the administration of the man who delivered a nation which still wears the anxious expression, the halting gait, the habiliments of sorrow, incident to the conflict out of which he brought the nation, can afford sometimes to decline even an investigation.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the resolution. Is the Senate ready for the question? The preamble will be reserved until after the vote is, taken on the resolution.

Mr. HARLAN. I desire to amend the phraseology of the resolution in one or two respects.

Mr. SCHURZ. Mr. President ---

Mr. HARLAN. I yield to the honorable Senator if he desires to address the Senate.

Mr. SCHURZ. Mr. President, the resolution offered by the Senator from Massachusetts contemplates an investigation of certain facts. Yesterday that investigation seemed to be exceedingly popular in this body; at least every member of the Senate speaking upon it declared that he should be delighted to see it go on. To-day it does not appear quite as popular 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. ,] 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 &mdash; what do you think, sir? &mdash; 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. ] 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 not the American people, who have always considered him a patriot, grossly mistaken their man?

Sir, this is by no means a very extraordinary spectacle, for you will well remember that at the commencement of this session, when a resolution was introduced by the Senator from Illinois, [Mr. ,] contemplating certain investigations to be made in the various branches of the civil service at New York and elsewhere, it was intimated, nay, loudly asserted in the newspapers, that those who demanded that investigation were very doubtful characters compared with those whose conduct was to be investigated; in fact, that such men as the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. ,] the Senator from Illinois, [Mr. ,] 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 imitating their example. The preamble commences as follows:

How has this statement been interpreted by the Senator from Iowa, [Mr. ?] 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 Government 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 Government of the United States has become aware of practices of a doubtful character connected with the same thing in this neighborhood. The French Government, therefore, may have expected such an inquiry to be instituted 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 dispatch is; and when by the French Government the character of American officials is called into question, as, according to this dispatch, 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:

The Senator from Iowa seemed very much startled by the fact that the Senator from Massachusetts 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 impeached? So far it is not; and now is that dispatch founded upon something? Is there anything in it calculated to awaken out attention and thus give us a ground for inquiry? Can anybody doubt the propriety of incorporating a statement like this in a preamble of a resolution of inquiry? If not, why is the Senator from Massachusetts blamed for it?

Thirdly:

I will not read the whole statement again. It treats of the sale of certain batteries, I believe, 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 &mdash; or, I will rather say the ordnance department of our

Government &mdash; 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 cartridges for sale to such men; when it is stated by a gentleman for whose character I think the Senator from New York [ Mr. ] has already vouched, that after great difficulty the order was obtained to have those cartridges manufactured &mdash; 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 resolution?

Furthermore:

I will not read this communication at length. Its contents are simply that he denies having sold to Remington &amp; Sons arms after the middle of October while he admits that cartridges were manufactured at the Government workshops for another purchaser of arms; and that he denies also to know anything of strong influences brought to bear on the War Department, as mentioned in Mr. Squire's dispatch. Why, gentleman, here is a document of high official authority, in which one of the allegations brought forward in the letter of Mr. Remington is substantially admitted and confirmed; that is, the manufacture of cartridges, although it is stated that they were not manufactured for Remington &amp; Sons, but for Mr. Richardson. Is it not proper to bring this forward in the enumeration of the reasons which render this investigation advisable?

Furthermore:

I see no impropriety in that, except perhaps as to the use of the word &ldquo;known.&rdquo; I do not know whether the Senator from Massachusetts put it in for the purpose of conveying the impression that by the record here he was known as the attorney of Remington &amp; Sons.

Mr. SUMNER. No; of course not.

Mr. SCHURZ. As I understand, it is a matter of general notoriety that Mr. Richardson did legal business for Messrs. Remington &amp; 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.

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 upon record.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Give us the proof.

Mr. SCHURZ. Reading the report of the Secretary of War, and reading the report of the Secretary of the Treasury as it has been read here several times, it appears that in the Treasury report there is accounted for ordnance stores a considerable sum less than there is reported by the Secretary of War.

Mr. EDMUNDS. That I deny, and I challenge my friend to read from the documents the items that he depends upon to make the charge.

Mr. SCHURZ. They have been read very frequently.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I should like my friend to point them out, because I can show him that he is laboring under an immeasurable mistake on that point.

Mr. SCHURZ. I was going to make a statement which I think will satisfy the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Here are the four books; point them out.

Mr. SCHURZ. 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 prevail in any of the departments of the Government that if anything wrong was there they would make it appear so glaringly upon the 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 explanations which have been given, my mind has not been entirely satisfied as to the clearness of the official statements. Perhaps the Senator from Vermont can, in the course of this debate, give us information perfectly satisfactory.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I cannot give it to him until he points out to me whereabouts in these documents the precise thing on which he and I differ appears.

Mr. SCHURZ. I will tell the Senator. 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 discrepancies 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 suggest that it has not been explained up to the present moment with sufficient clearness.

Mr. EDMUNDS. But my honorable friend does not either understand me or he does not mean to point out where this apparent discrepancy, as he calls it, is; because if he will show it to us I think I shall be amply able to show him in about five minutes that there is no such discrepancy.

Mr. SCHURZ. I do not desire to discuss this matter now, and if the Senator from Vermont will permit me to go on with my argument, we may return to it when I am through.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Certainly; by all means go on if you do not wish to explain.

Mr. SCHURZ. The preamble proceeds:

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 columns 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 journals of foreign countries could acquaint himself 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 statements have appeared it is perfectly proper to enumerate the fact among the reasons for this investigation.

Again:

And here I touch the point which was so eloquently, commented upon by the Senator from New Jersey. Certainly, to see the American name compromised would be a very painful 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 American name of all imputations, or to expose and punish those who compromised it. I do not think that we can protect the honor of the American name, keep untarnished the brightness 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 the 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 conceived 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 &mdash; suspicions grave enough to demand and inquiry. If any positive allegations have been made, they were made on the other side, for we heard the Senator from Iowa and several other Senators open and close their speeches with the emphatic 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 a perfectly proper proceeding. 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 dispose d 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 in the scale; and this great Government of ours, being a friend of both these nations, desired 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 considerations of great importance suggesting themselves before the sale of arms under such circumstances was commenced; especial care, especial circumspection, were evidently required. The Senator from Iowa, if I understood him correctly &mdash; and I am very sorry not

to see him in his seat now, for I may misinterpret what he said &mdash; 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 stating him erroneously he might correct me, for the proposition I thought I heard him advance was quite extraordinary; I might say somewhat startling.

I merely desire to observe that I certainly cannot subscribe to that entirely novel doctrine. 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 minister had requested the Secretary of War to suspend the sales of arms for a little while so that Prussian agents also might have an opportunity 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 actually 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 advancing money upon them, to prevent the sale of those arms to the French. This, as, I understand, 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 Secretary of 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:

This, sir, you will admit, was very proper. The principle, the rule of action laid down by our Government for itself seemed to be simply this: that no arms should be sold to a known 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 belligerent parties should be aided to the detriment of the other. If this rule of action was established, then no arms could have been sold by the Government when their going at once into the hands of either belligerent could be foreseen with a reasonable degree of certainty.

The Government had to use more than ordinary 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 that persons applying for arms were not the agents of either one or the other of the belligerent parties, with all the means of information within reach. 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 presumption 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. Suppose, 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 pleasure; he had an opportunity in view for disposing 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 circumspect in the disposition made of ordnance stores.

It must also have occurred to you that previous 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 cartridges, small lots of rifles, and so on. Suddenly in October, 1870, Remington &amp; Sons come to buy 50,000 Springfield rifled muskets, 14,757 Remington carbines, 19,434 Spencer cartridges, 17,517,822 Spencer cartridges, and so on. It was then certain that something extraordinary had taken place in the market. 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 disclosed himself as the agent of the French Government. He telegraphed to them, making 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 immediately afterward that Remington &amp; 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 &mdash; sales to a tremendous amount. You will find on page 18 of this report:

Of course the new bidders who now came, warned by the example of Remington, would not come to the Government and tell them, &ldquo;We are French agents,&rdquo; 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 departments strong reason to take surrounding circumstances into consideration and to use more than ordinary circumspection 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 purpose of transferring them to one of the belligerents, but for other uses, a somewhat violent 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 some way, and that the arms they had bought were at once shipped to France.

Mr. CONKLING. I should be glad to hear from the Senator where that appeared.

Mr. SCHURZ. If the Senator will read the items in the report of the Secretary of War about the sale of ordnance, and if he will read also in the French documents, which he can find in French papers and reports, the lots bought there, he can identify them very easily; or is the Senator one of those who suppose that Austin Baldwin &amp; Co. bought one hundred and ten thousand Springfield muskets, as I said before, for the purpose of scaring away blackbirds?

Mr. CONKLING. Does the Senator want an answer?

Mr. SCHURZ. Certainly.

Mr. CONKLING. Then I beg to say to him that the Senator from New York is not one who will discuss this question as if at that time the Franco-Prussian war gave rise to the only arms market in the world. On the contrary, he will discuss it, knowing that at that time other peoples were arming, as the Senator from Missouri also knows. And in the same connection I say to him that having made some investigation on this subject I not only do not find that coincidence between French accounts and American sales which identifies these arms as all having gone there, but I find the reverse to my entire satisfaction.

Mr. SCHURZ. I think the course of the investigation will satisfy the Senator that if not absolutely all, at least an overwhelming majority of these arms went right there.

Mr. CONKLING. The Senator will observe that there is a difference between &ldquo;all&rdquo; and &ldquo;an overwhelming majority.&rdquo; As he expressed it, I understood him to say that all these arms went there, and that I would so find if I would look. I reply to him that I do not so find, nor do I understand that the purchase of arms by the two belligerents of which he is speaking constituted by any manner of means the whole or even the chief market in Christendom for arms at that time.

Mr. SCHURZ. I think that is one of those things which can easily be ascertained by the investigation. At any rate, it will turn out that all the large lots of arms sold went that way. It may, however, interest the Senator also to learn that most of those who bought arms after Remington &amp; Sons' bids were thrown out turned out afterward virtually to be sub-agents for Remington &amp; 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 tally 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 yesterday by the Senator from Massachusetts. That letter is addressed to Jules Le Cesne, esq. , president of the commission of armament:

Mark you, &ldquo;I,&rdquo; Remington &mdash;

Where do these fifty batteries appear? Look over the report of the ordnance department and you search in vain for the name of Remington, but these fifty batteries do appear on the nineteenth page of that report under the name of Austin Baldwin &amp; Co. So we have here Mr. Remington, who says &ldquo;I got the Government to reduce the number of batteries from one hundred to fifty;&rdquo; &ldquo;I made the first payment of $200,000;&rdquo; these being the same batteries, for there are no others, which appear here under the name of Austin Baldwin &amp; 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:

This was dated at New York December 13, 1870, and, mark you, Remington had discovered 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 to the commission of armament in France, &ldquo;I have made this arrangement with the chief of ordnance,&rdquo; &ldquo;I have bought these arms,&rdquo; and &ldquo;I have made these payments.&rdquo;

Now, I suppose, this appearing from Mr. Remington's own letter, it cannot be regarded as a mere empty boast for the purpose of getting 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 do not know to what the Senator refers as having been said by me yesterday. I believe he referred to it once before.

Mr. SCHURZ. I understood the Senator from New York to say that Mr. Remington was a very worthy neighbor of his, and a gentleman, and all that sort of thing; that he was a great arms merchant, and so on, giving him a general indorsement. I may have misunderstood him.

Mr. CONKLING. That shows the extent of the honorable Senator's understanding, but it is too great a measure of what I said. I made no such declaration, 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 manufacturer 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. I only correct him as to the fact in regard to the debate as it took place.

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.

Mr. SUMNER. I should like to know what I said of Mr. Remington to which the Senator from New York takes exception.

Mr. CONKLING. That I could hardly inject now into the speech of the Senator from Missouri. At any convenient time I will be happy to answer the Senator's question; but I suppose it would be hardly fit to do so now in the midst of the speech of the Senator from Missouri. I will, however, do it, if both Senators wish me.

Mr. SCHURZ. I have no objection.

Mr. SUMNER. The Senator said I had said something in regard to Mr. Remington to which be objected. I should like to know what it was.

Mr. CONKLING. I understood the Senator from Massachusetts to speak of Mr. Remington not only in a disparaging way, but I think in an opprobrious way, on one occasion alluding to &ldquo;this Remington.&rdquo; I understood him to treat Mr. Remington as if he was a disreputable man, a dishonest or unpatriotic man who had been figuring in France of late in some improper way. Indeed, I think that a listener could hardly fail of the impression that the Senator meant that by false testimony or by improper influence of Mr. Remington a conviction had recently befallen a culprit in France. This was one connection in which he spoke of Mr. Remington as a person who went to France authenticated, fortified. I may have received an incorrect impression of what the Senator intended to say; but I certainly supposed he meant to assign Mr. Remington a very low and unfortunate place in the scale of being.

Mr. SUMNER. I beg the Senator's pardon. If the Senator will look at the report he will see that there was nothing to justify or sustain him.

Mr. CONKLING. Shall I understand the Senator now, then, to say that he did not intend and does not upon these facts intend to impute anything improper to Mr. Remington?

Mr. SUMNER. I say I never intended to make any allegation in regard to Mr. Remington. I simply referred to facts. He has been recently a witness in the courts of France and has attracted great attention there, as the Senator knows. To them I referred; that was all. I think the Senator will find no expression by which I in any way characterized Mr. Remington. I had no disposition to do it; and if any such thing fell from me in the course of my remarks I have no recollection of it, and I certainly did not intend to say anything characterizing Mr. Remington. I know nothing with regard to Mr. Remington's character beyond what appears in this transaction.

Mr. CONKLING. Very well. I am more likely no doubt to be mistaken about this than the honorable Senator from Massachusetts. I do not wish to continue the matter at this time, but only to add that I do know that Mr. Remington has recently appeared as a witness before a tribunal of France, and I find also in a journal which lies before me, published yesterday, a letter from a correspondent stating that Mr. Remington has received the thanks, the somewhat conspicuous acknowledgment, apparently, of that tribunal and of its president, for his intelligence and integrity.

Mr. SCHURZ. I am most happy to hear the Senator from New York say so, to 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 &ldquo;I bought these arms&rdquo; which afterward figured under the name of Austin Baldwin &amp; Co., then Mr. Remington must undoubtedly be believed. When he afterward said, &ldquo;I had these cartridges made,&rdquo; undoubtedly Mr. Remington, the agent of France, had these cartridges made.

Mr. CONKLING. Would an inquiry just there interrupt the Senator?

Mr. SCHURZ. Not at all.

Mr. CONKLING. I beg to inquire whether he would like the Senate to understand, whether he means to make upon the public the impression, that Mr. Remington, in that letter, says or implies that he personally or directly purchased these arms? Transposing my question, I beg to ask the Senator whether the letter he reads is not just as true, just as accurate, even if Mr. Remington made his purchases, as the Senator has alleged he did sometimes, through third persons, Austin Baldwin &amp; Co., Schuyler, Hartley &amp; Graham, as it would be had he appeared face to face with the Secretary of War and put in his bids himself by word of mouth?

Mr. SCHURZ. I do not allege anything. I permit Mr. Remington to allege himself. I stand upon the language of his letter.

Mr. CONKLING. The Senator must pardon me there; he puts me in a false position.

Mr. SCHURZ. I do not desire to do anything of that kind.

Mr. CONKLING. The Senator did allege just now, and I took it down, that notwithstanding 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. Remington &mdash; in spite of that fact, in December afterward this same man, said the Senator, writes &ldquo;I purchased,&rdquo; &ldquo;I did thus and so.&rdquo; Now the senator will see that his allegation is frivolous, it is pointless, unless he means, as evidently 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 December &ldquo;I have purchased so and so&rdquo; 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. Does the Senator from New York ask me what impression that letter conveys to my mind? Is that it?

Mr. CONKLING. I did, not so ask the Senator.

Mr. SCHURZ. Then what was it?

Mr. CONKLING. I ask the Senator this question, which I think is a very direct one: he presents that letter to cast bad faith upon the statement of the chief of ordnance. The chief of ordnance says that after the middle of October he had no transaction with this man, and refused to have any. The Senator reads a letter later in date, in which he says Mr. Remington speaks of a transaction then recently had. Of course, he confronts these two statements with each other. My question is whether to his mind, as a man of common sense, there is untruthfulness in that letter of Remington if the fact be that Remington bought, not personally avowing himself, but through Schuyler, Harley &amp; Graham, through Austin Baldwin &amp; Co., and various other persons, as to whom, let me remind the Senator, the maxim would be true so familiar to him, qui facit per alium facit per se? If I do an act through my friend from Massachusetts here, [Mr. ,] as my agent, I do that act in law and truth; and when I write that I have done it I ask the Senator whether he wants to convince the Senate that my statement will be false that I have done the thing if it turn out

that I did it through another and not through myself?

Mr. SCHURZ. In the first place, when the Senator from New York alleges that the chief of ordnance asserts not to have had any transactions with Remington after he had been discovered to be a French agent, he states something that is not in accordance with the record, for the chief of ordnance simply says, &ldquo;I postponed opening the bids, and immediately showed the dispatch to you, and you promptly directed me to suspend the sale and not to entertain any bids from E. Remington &amp; Sons.&rdquo; But he does not say that subsequently he had no transactions with him. The Secretary of War says that &ldquo;the Messrs. Remington &amp; Sons did not buy any arms or ammunitions from this Department after about the middle of October; nor would any bid from them for such articles have been entertained by the United States subsequent to that date.&rdquo; So that 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.

Mr. CONKLING. I cannot say that.

Mr. SCHURZ. Does he not deem it possible that Remington may have in the name of these other firms transacted in person all the business without making a bid and purchasing a single gun in his own name?

Mr. CONKLING. Does the Senator want an answer to that?

Mr. SCHURZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. CONKLING. No, Mr. President, I cannot conceive, except by convicting the Secretary of War and the chief of ordnance of falsehood, that Mr. Remington in person or in any character known and revealed to them made bids, purchased arms, or became possessed, as purchaser, of arms or ordnance stores from the Government of the United States after that day in October when his transactions ceased, and when he was driven to the cover of other names, and compelled to buy through Schuyler, Hartley &amp; Graham, or somebody whom the Department at Washington did not suspect of buying for one of the belligerents.

Mr. SCHURZ. Very well. 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 about another case that has some bearing on this question. One of the most curious features of this proceeding was that with which one Thomas Richardson, whose name has already been mentioned in this debate, was connected. Mr. Thomas Richardson, I suppose it is generally understood, is a lawyer 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 Messrs. Remington &amp; Sons. Not having any definite information on that point, I state it merely as a report. 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 ordnance 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 lawyer asking for forty thousand muskets and four hundred rounds apiece. For what purpose does he want this great armament? 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 and asks for forty thousand Springfield muskets the suspicion was justified &mdash; it could scarcely be

avoided &mdash; that he was acting for some other person, whom he was to cover with his name. But it seems that Richardson did not transact his business with the ordnance department himself &mdash; and here I claim the attentions 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 according to the report of the Secretary of War it was for Mr. Thomas Richardson that the cartridges 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:

No doubt under this statute the chief of ordnance 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 designated that may be sold &mdash; 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 has 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 manufacture 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 ordnance department to manufacture these cartridges. Let us see what he has to say about that:

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! &mdash;

You will notice how very intimate Mr. Remington was with the movements of the ordnance department; he certainly could not have been very far away from it &mdash;

I will say, to explain Mr. Remington's position, that he was made the agent of France for the purchase of arms in the United States in the month of September, and came back to this country again, arriving here on the 9th of December.

Mr. BLAIR. The statute authorizing the sale of these ordnance stores characterized

them as &ldquo;those now in possession of the War Department.&rdquo;

Mr. SCHURZ. Yes then in the possession of the War Department, and not things to be manufactured.

Mr. CONKLING. I would like to know whether pig-lead and all the other parts of a cartridge, in the judgment of the Senator, being in possession, would be ordnance stores within that statute, or whether, according to his remark before, he thinks it relates to arms alone &mdash; guns with all parts assembled, or cartridges with all the parts assembled?

Mr. SCHURZ. I did not say so. I only said that the statute provides that arms in possession of the United States Government may be sold, but that it does not say anything about authorizing the War Department to manufacture any articles for sale.

Mr. CONKLING. But the honorable Senator does not understand me. He reads the statute which relates to arms alone. I am trying to call his attention to the fact that it relates to all ordnance stores, and I am reminding him that pig lead, for example, and every other part of a cartridge is a part of the ordnance stores. Perhaps it may appear to him before this is over.

Mr. SCHURZ. I read the statute as it stands in that connection, &ldquo;arms and other ordnance stores.&rdquo; I never doubted that. I understand the Senator perfectly. As to pig lead, pig lead is not cartridges; pig lead and gunpowder may, as such, have been in the possession of the Government, but the cartridges had to be manufactured, and the cartridges to be manufactured were not old stock, as designated by the statute.

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, &ldquo;I had those cartridges made,&rdquo; &ldquo;I made the deposits,&rdquo; &ldquo;I was told by the chief of ordnance,&rdquo; 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 York 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 reason for suspecting him of being at the bottom of the whole of it, and he being known as the French agent, that it required an extraordinary amount of short-sightedness not to see it?

And here comes the chief of ordinance and says, &ldquo;Oh, we would not sell to Remington, God forbid! but Thomas Richardson was an innocent man,&rdquo; while it appears from Remington's own letter that Mr. Remington was Mr. Thomas Richardson. Well, sir, I am forced to the conclusion that in these transactions there appears a degree of blindness compared with which the blindness of bats and moles is clairvoyance or that the whole proceeding 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.

But more than that &mdash; and I request the attention of my friend from New York once more; I am sorry to trouble him so much ---

Mr. CONKLING. Does the Senator allude to me in those touching terms?

Mr. SCHURZ. Certainly.

Mr. CONKLING. I beg to assure him he has not troubled me yet. [Laughter.]

Mr. SCHURZ. I am happy to hear it. Mr. Remington happened to get into some difficulties with the French Government, difficulties 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 sums of money due him on a lot of arms furnished by him previous to his transactions with

our ordnance department. Mr. Remington went to France to have these difficulties settled 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. Would the Senator like to know how that is?

Mr. SCHURZ. Certainly, with the greatest pleasure.

Mr. CONKLING. I understand the Senator to say that he is informed that Mr. Remington 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 letter 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. Remington 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 several 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 questioned, I could not hesitate &mdash; I think now I employ the words I did in the letter &mdash; I could not hesitate to say for him and for all his father's sons that commercially and personally, as far as I had ever known, their character 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, however, as I am furnishing the Senator information, 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 Government as no citizens of any Government he had ever visited would be; that now when his character was questioned abroad he had applied 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 certify, even when they believed it, the good character of our citizens.

I think he told me &mdash; and having said this I shall relieve the Senator &mdash; that all he had been able to procure from any Department of the Government of the United States (very likely he had reference to the communication to which the Senator has referred, coming from the Secretary of War) was some certified transcript of the records of Department or bureau 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 be told me that from some Departments be 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 stated. 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 cordiality, it would be considered somewhat singular 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 Senator understand me to report Mr. Remington as applying for letters of introduction to introduce him to good society abroad?

Mr. SCHURZ. No, sir. I understood the Senator from New York to say that Mr. Remington, having been maligned abroad, desired to have some certificate as to his character and standing, and that he obtained that certificate as an act of friendship from the Senator from New York, not to speak of the endorsement given him by the chief of ordnance and the Secretary of War. That is what I understood him to say.

Mr. CONKLING. The object of my inquiry was this: Mr. Remington being an arms-dealer, and having been questioned as to his business and character, and having obtained from the military department of his Government a certificate that his dealings with it had been honest, 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. Remington, 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 introduce himself into fashionable society that I am almost sure he desired those letters to 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. Remington 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.

Mr. SCHURZ. No. I know very well when these letters were furnished to Mr. Remington.

Mr. CONKLING. I will tell the Senator, if he will allow me; I ought to have told him before if I did not. It was long, long after the war between France and Germany had ceased to rage.

Mr. SCHURZ. I understand.

Mr. CONKLING. It was now recently; since snow fell this winter, I think; certainly quite recently.

Mr. SCHURZ. Certainly; I am well acquainted 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 Government, had got in to 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 semi-official, bearing official signatures, at least official titles of officers of the United States attached to the signatures, 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 appear 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 Government 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 transaction. There were certain sums paid by France for arms which appear in their newspapers and in their official and semi-official documents. 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 Government does not appear in a quite definite shape. It is merely put at about fifty-four million francs, which would make in gold $11,000,000; 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 the absolute 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 Remington, 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 December, 1870, when the moneys expended for American arms ceased to pass through the hands of the consul general, the French Government 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.

Mr. EDMUNDS. What document?

Mr. SCHURZ. I have already said that I am quoting from official documents. It is figured up from the account of the War Department. The Senator has the report of the Department and can make the calculations.

Mr. EDMUNDS. The report of the War Department is six hundred pages long.

Mr. SCHURZ. No, this little report. [That of January 24, 1872.]

Mr. EDMUNDS. Let me have that.

Mr. SCHURZ. Certainly. Now, sir, 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 authorized to charge the French Government a commission 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. Remington's commission might have been from three hundred to three hundred and fifty thousand dollars. That there is a discrepancy between the money paid by the French Government and the money received by the United States Government and Remington's commissions 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 &mdash; a very curious circumstance; and certainly it cannot be presumed that Mr. Remington could have pocketed it, soiled 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 person, 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, I do not know. Here we are moving on dark ground, which is to be explored. Neither do I think that we ever commenced an investigation of such things where we were able distinctly to say &ldquo;there is the man who has the money.&rdquo; Were we able to say that, investigation would be unnecessary. The 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 question, is this any concern of the American people? 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 concern the American people? We have heard here in these dispatches of &ldquo;strong influences&rdquo; 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 other circumstances suspiciously connected with them, then I readily admit it might be put out of the way as irrelevant. But when there is reason to believe that money has been spilled in a mysterious way, and when there is talk of &ldquo;strong influences&rdquo; having been used, of difficulties having been overcome, the idea naturally suggests itself that the strong influences 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 suspicion 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

the bounden duty of every citizen of the United States who values the standing of the Government 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 Government, by our chief of ordnance and our Secretary of War over their official signatures. Tell me, does not our Government to a certain extent appear implicated in his case? I will not say that it was so implicated by the authority 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 indiscretion 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 us to close our eyes to these occurrences, for nobody else does. It is impossible 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 denouncing the Government of the United States to the world abroad. Why, gentlemen are we not revealing any secret here? Do not indulge in such delusions. All Europe knows already what we are speaking about. Do you think you can by putting your beads in the sand, like the ostrich, make all the world believe 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 perpetrated 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 Government was furnishing arms to France, a great commotion sprang up among American citizens of German nativity. When first the great sales, in October, were made, protests were brought before the Government, strong representations were made to the President himself, 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 country, resolutions were passed, and I especially was flooded with an avalanche of letters and addresses and protests 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 thousands of signatures, by citizens of Wisconsin:

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 yield to that pressure, and I did not carry the matter before the Senate of the United States, deeming it imprudent at that time to provoke 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 expedient, and also surer of effect, to make every effort quietly by application to the executive branch of this Government to have these sales of arms stopped and that source of unwholesome excitement removed. So I went to the Secretary of War as soon as the matter came fairly to my attention. I had a number of interviews with him, reading to him the remonstrances which I received, pointing out to him the thousands and thousands of signatures attached to them representing to him how everybody in the United States understood very well where those arms from our arsenals were going &mdash; 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 consequences to have the mischief discontinued. The answer received in several of these interviews was that the Government had a right to sell arms to American citizens; that he 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 Secretary 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 feelings 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 for 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 an 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 most 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 calculated 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 &mdash; doing all this for no apparent reason but to sell arms, which sooner or later might have been disposed of to equal advantage without any of the risks now attending the transaction. And when thus I saw that the international standing 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 suspicion forced itself instinctively upon my mind that there was a job at the bottom of this otherwise 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 &mdash; and here I will express myself frankly and boldly. There is an impression prevailing in this country that somewhere in this Government there sits &ldquo;a military ring,&rdquo; which is exercising an unwholesome, 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, bringing 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.