d
and clouded, until each looked with a blood-shotten eye at
the conduct of the other. But I believe they know and honor
each other now.

CHAPTER XIII
SUMNER AND WILSON

When I took my seat on the 4th of March, 1869, the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts had a position of power in both Houses of
Congress never held by any other State before or since, unless
we except that held for a short time in early days by Virginia.
Charles Sumner was beyond all question the foremost figure
on the National stage, save Grant alone. He had seen the
triumph of the doctrines for which he had contended all his
life. He had more than any other man contributed to fetter
the hands of Andrew Johnson and drive him from power. Henry
Wilson was the most skilful political organizer in the country.
Sumner was at the head of the Committee on Foreign Relations,
and Wilson of that of Military Affairs. In the House Henry
L. Dawes was at the head of the Committee on Appropriations,
Benjamin F. Butler of the Committee on Reconstruction, William
B. Washburn of the Committee on Claims, Nathaniel P. Banks
of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. These Committees with
the Committee on the Judiciary of which General Butler was
a member, and the Committee on Ways and Means, controlled
the policy of the House on all the great questions then interesting
the country. Samuel Hooper had the third place on the Committee
on Coinage, Weights and Measures. But he was its dominant
member and in a later Congress introduced the Bill for Reforming
the Currency, a wise and salutary measure. It is known,
however, among ignorant people in some parts of the country
as "The Crime of '73."

Sumner and Wilson are so well known to the American people
that it would be superfluous for me to attempt to describe
either elaborately. I have spoken of each at some length
elsewhere.

Charles Sumner held a place in the public life of the country
which no other man ever shared with him. He held a place
in the public life of the world shared by very few indeed.
He was an idealist. He subjected every measure to the inexorable
test of the moral law. Yet, at the same time, he was a powerful
political leader, and in a time when the fate of the Republic
was decided accomplished vast practical results. Where duty
seemed to him to utter its high commands he could see no obstacle
in hostile majorities, and no restraint in the limitations
of a written Constitution. It is right,