Grant was delighted — Sumner was pledged! Had he not said he was an 'Administration man'? And could an 'Administration man' do other than obey orders like a subordinate in the army? Of course, Sumner, who took his duties seriously, had only pledged himself to 'careful and candid consideration,' but Grant wearied on long sentences. The next day, Babcock, military ambassador, called on Sumner with the treaty, and, when it reached the Senate, Sumner laid it before his committee. In the informal discussion he expressed no opinion. The others were unfriendly all but Morton, who had Grant's idea of an 'Administration man.'

It was about this time that Senator Carl Schurz, calling at the White House, was casually solicited to support the treaty, and when the Senator, more amazed than Sumner, took his courage in both hands frankly to explain his objections, he observed that quite soon Grant's 'eyes wandered about the room' as though he were bored.1

The drama, which was to mean something to the Republican Party, was hurrying on. Sumner, hearing strange rumors that Baez was being sustained in power by the American Navy, hastened to the Navy Department to find he had not been misled, and that the treaty had been made under duress. That was enough for Sumner.

Meanwhile, with Sumner's committee failing to act, Grant, enraged at the delay, and holding the chairman responsible, began to threaten vengeance. "The idea has got abroad,' wrote Forney to Sumner, 'that he has marked you out for sacrifice, and it excites much feeling.' 2

At length, despite the President's active lobbying, the committee made an adverse report, and two days later, Grant appeared at the Capitol in belligerent mood. He appeared, said the 'New York World,' 'somewhat in the style of Oliver Cromwell,' and, handing a messenger a list of Senators, said, 'Send these men to me immediately.' There was some excitement and no end of gossip. The fact, too, that New York speculators had moved on the Capitol, created an ugly atmosphere. On March 24, Sumner opened the debate in secret session with a powerful attack on the treaty,

1 Schurz, 307-09.

3 March 20, 1870.

2 Pierce, IV, 439.

4 New York World, March 24, 1870.

and the next day Grant was at the Capitol again summoning Senators from the floor, 'taking them into committee rooms and out-of-the-way corners, buttonholing them to vote for the GrantBaez Treaty.'1

The fight dragged on, increasing in bitterness, Morton cracking the party whip to no avail. Senator Wilson, supporting Grant for party solidarity, admitted that nine tenths of the people were against the treaty. When the Collector of the Port of New York attempted a popular demonstration for it at Cooper Union, it was a failure - the speculators on the platform all too conspicuous. In the Senate, Morton was fighting hard, a large collection of San Domingo products on his desk, for he was taking his colleagues to the mountain-top. A large block of salt from the mountains of Neibia proved most interesting to the statesmen, and they gathered about to taste it — ‘including Revels,' said the 'New York Herald.' But the opposition was thoroughly organized on a principle- the plans perfected in the library of Sumner's home by Sumner and Schurz.3

2

Two weeks before the vote, Secretary Fish appeared at Sumner's home one night and sought until midnight to swerve him from his purpose. 'Why not go to London?' asked Fish suddenly. 'I offer you the English mission; it is yours'; or, 'How would you like to be Minister to England?' 5 None of the chroniclers of the incident describe it as an attempt to bribe, for Fish was above such methods. Badeau, never wholly reliable, offers the explanation that Fish found Sumner in tears, and assumed his condition due to his domestic or financial difficulties, and advised him, on adjournment, to go to Europe and forget his troubles. With Sumner's reply that he could not afford it, Fish impulsively blurted forth the offer. 'No, I cannot disturb Motley,' was the reply. 'No, I see you are right,' said Fish. 'You could not supplant Motley.'"

Even so, the day after the failure of the treaty, the blow fell on Sumner's friend- Motley was dismissed! With amusing simplicity, Senator Wilson protested to Grant that the dismissal would be interpreted in Massachusetts as a blow at Sumner. And Sumner

1 New York World, March 26, 1870.

4 Pierce, IV, 443–44.

7 Pierce, IV, 446.

2 March 26, 1870.

5 Badeau, 216.

3 Schurz. 325. 6 Badeau, 216.

wrote Longfellow: 'At last the blow has fallen on Motley. I am unhappy at the thought of the unhappiness in his house. . . . When I see you on the piazza, I will tell you the story of "Revenge."" 1 While Sumner was sitting on the poet's piazza at Nahant telling him the story of 'Revenge,' Grant was trout-fishing with Simon Cameron in Pennsylvania. The Democratic organ said: 'Troutfishing with an unscrupulous politician like Simon Cameron exhibits General Grant in a new light and Simon as a dexterous fisher of men. We do not know with what Simon baited his hook, but he has evidently caught a President.' 2

And so he had, as we shall see later.

VIII

Quite as trying to party solidarity was the case of Georgia. Here we must pause for a hasty survey of events in that State under the government of the carpetbaggers, protected by the sword. These had bestowed the governorship on Rufus Bullock, a large man of pleasant manners, and in less than two years his administration reeked with corruption. The genius of his merry group of marauders was H. I. Kimball, who craved no office, distributed places to his retainers with a blessing, and only asked the small boon of looting the Treasury. Nor was he parsimonious. Through him a seat in the Legislature could be made lucrative. The politicians bowed low before this dashing, affable, successful man with the Midas touch and with something of the generosity of Dives. The negro members chuckled at his approach, and sang a song in his praise:

'H. I. Kimball's on de flo',
'Tain't gwine ter rain no mo'.'

While building railroads with State money was his specialty, he was versatility itself. Thinking an opera house in course of construction wanton waste, he bought it, remodeled it, and sold it to Georgia as a State House at a handsome profit. The capital needed a fine hotel enough; he built the Kimball House, and paid for it with the State bonds, over which, as semi-official financial agent of the Commonwealth, he had autocratic control, making no re1 Pierce, IV, 448. New York World, June 20, 1870.