ing the doctrine of human rights. As
such it remains a treatise of great value; but as a political
argument calculated to shape and determine the legislation of Congress,
it was singularly inapt. As a counter-proposition he submitted a
preamble and joint resolution in these words: "Whereas it is provided
by the Constitution that the United States shall guarantee to every
State of the Union a republican form of government, and whereas, by
reason of the failure of certain States to maintain governments which
Congress might recognize, it has become the duty of the United States,
standing in the place of guarantor," . . . "Therefore be it resolved,
that there shall be no oligarchy, aristocracy, caste or monopoly
invested with peculiar privileges or powers, and there shall be no
denial of rights, civil or political, on account of race or color
within the limits of the United States or the jurisdiction thereof,
but all persons therein shall be equal before the law, whether in the
court-room or at the ballot-box, and this statute, made in pursuance
of the Constitution, shall be the supreme law of the land, any thing
in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Mr. Fessenden replied to Mr. Sumner in an elaborate speech in
justification of the amendment proposed by the Reconstruction
Committee. His argument was marked with all his peculiar ability,
and the two speeches contain within themselves the fullest exposition
of the difference in mental quality of the two eminent New-England
statesmen who were so long rivals in the Senate of the United States.
Mr. Fessenden was above all things practical; he was unwilling at any
time to engage in legislation that was not effective and direct; he
had no sympathy with mere declarations, was absolutely free from the
vanity so often exhibited in legislative bodies, of speaking when there
was no question before the body for decision, or of submitting
resolutions merely in response to a popular sentiment, without
effecting any valuable result. In short, Congress was with him a
law-making body. It met for that business and so far as he could
direct its proceedings, Mr. Fessenden, as chairman at different times
of leading committees, held it to its work. He was felicitous with his
pen beyond the rhetorical power of Mr. Sumner, though not so deeply
read, nor so broad in scholarship and general culture.

He made an able argument for the pending amendment as th