sequently those which ought to shape its administration, "The supremacy of the civil over the military authority." Imbued with this principle, I hoped that Congress would see the way to establish at once civil governments in all those States, and not subject them to military power, except so far as needed for purposes of protection. This is the true object of the army. It is to protect the country, not to make constitutions, or to superintend the making of constitutions. At least, so I have read the history of republican institutions, and such are the aspirations that I presume to express for my country.

The vote on Mr. Sumner's proposition stood, Yeas 20, Nays 20, being a tie, so that the amendment was lost. Any one Senator changing from the negative would have carried it.

The bill passed the Senate, Yeas 38, Nays 2. On the amendments of the Senate there was a difference between the two Houses, which ended in a committee of conference, whose report was concurred in without a division.

March 23d, the bill was vetoed by the President. On the same day it was passed again by the House, Yeas 114, Nays 25, and by the Senate, Yeas 40, Nays 7,- being more than two thirds; so that it became a law, notwithstanding the objections of the President.1

1 Statutes at Large, Vol. XV. pp. 2-5.

PROHIBITION OF DIPLOMATIC UNIFORM.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON A JOINT RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE UNIFORM OF PERSONS IN THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES, MARCH 20, 1867.

MARCH 20th, Mr. Sumner, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, reported the following joint resolution:

“Resolved, &c., That all persons in the diplomatic service of the United States are prohibited from wearing any uniform or official costume not previously authorized by Congress."

He then stated that it was reported from the Committee unanimously, and that perhaps the Senate would be willing to consider it at once. The resolution was proceeded with by unanimous consent, when Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, remarked: "I do not see what right we have to prevent a minister abroad from wearing the uniform of our army, if he chooses." Mr. Sumner replied:

HE Senator is aware that a habit exists among our

countries in the nature of court costumes or dresses; and this is often required before they are presented. The Committee on Foreign Relations, after careful consideration, have unanimously come to the conclusion that it is expedient to prohibit any such uniform or official costume, unless sanctioned previously by Act of Congress. It seems clear that our ministers abroad should not be required by any foreign government to wear a uniform, costume, or dress unknown to our own laws. This is very simple, and not unreasonable.

This question is perhaps more important than it appears. On its face it is of form only, or rather of dress, proper for the learned in Carlyle's "Sartor Resartus." But I am not sure that it does not concern the character of the Republic. Shall our ministers abroad be required by any foreign government to assume a uniform unknown to our laws? Ministers of other countries appear at foreign courts in the dress they would wear before the sovereign at home. What is good enough for the sovereign at home is, I understand, good enough for other sovereigns. And surely the dress in which one of our ministers would appear before the President of the United States ought to be sufficient anywhere. Its simplicity is to my mind no argument against it.

It is sometimes said, gravely enough, that, if our ministers appear in the simple dress of a citizen, according to the requirement of Mr. Marcy's famous circular, they may be mistaken for "upper servants." If such be the case, they will have little of the stamp of fitness. I am not troubled on this head. Their simplicity would be a distinction, and it would be typical of the republican government they represent. Amidst the brilliant dresses and fantastic uniforms of European courts a simple dress would be most suggestive. A British minister appearing at the Congress of Vienna in simple black, with a single star on his breast, so contrasted with the bedizened crowd about him as to awaken the admiration of an illustrious prince, who exclaimed, "How distinguished!"

This is an old subject, which I trust may be disposed of at last. Mr. Marcy enjoined simplicity in the official dress of our foreign representatives, and dwelt with pride on the well-known example of Benjamin Franklin. But

his instructions were not sufficiently explicit, and they were allowed to die out. Some appeared in simple black, and were not mistaken for upper servants." But gold lace at last carried the day, and our representatives now appear in a costume peculiar to European courts. A simple prohibition by Congress will put an end to this petty complication, and make it easy for them to follow abroad the simple ways to which they have been accustomed at home.

MR. SHERMAN. All I wish to know is, whether General Dix, or any other minister, could wear the uniform of our army, if he chose. The rule, if I understand it, in some foreign countries, is, that a person must appear at court in some kind of uniform. If none is provided by his government, or authorized by his government, then he adopts a certain uniform according to the custom of the country to which he is accredited. Perhaps, however, I am not correct.

MR. SUMNER. The object of the pending measure is to encounter that precise requirement of foreign governments, and to put our ministers on an equality with those of other countries. I have already said that ministers of other countries may appear at the courts to which they are addressed as they would appear before their own sovereign. I take it the Turkish ambassador is not obliged to assume in Paris or London any official costume peculiar to France or England; but he appears, as at a reception by his own sovereign, with the fez on his head. And so the Austrian ambassador appears in his fantastic Hungarian jacket. But I see no reason why there should be one rule for these ambassadors, and another for the representatives of the American Republic. Here, as elsewhere, there should be equality. The equality of nations is a first principle of International Law.

But this is offended by any requirement of a foreign government which shall not leave our representative free to appear before the sovereign of the country to which he is accredited as he would before the Chief Magistrate of the American people, in other words, in the simple dress of an American citizen. This is the whole case.

MR. SHERMAN. The Senator does not yet answer my question: Will this prevent an American minister abroad from wearing the uniform of an officer of the army of the United States, such as he would be entitled to wear under our laws, if here?

MR. SUMNER. If entitled under our laws, there could be no difficulty.

MR. SHERMAN. We have a law which authorizes a volunteer officer who has attained the rank of a brigadier-general, for instance, always on state occasions to wear that uniform.

MR. SUMNER. There can be no misunderstanding. The ministers are simply to follow Congress; and as Congress has not authorized any uniform or official costume, they can have none, unless they come within the exceptional case to which the Senator has alluded. Certain persons who have been in the military service are authorized, under an existing Act of Congress, to wear their military uniform on public occasions. This resolution cannot interfere in any way with that provision. It leaves the Act of Congress in full force, and is applicable only to those not embraced by that Act.

The joint resolution passed the Senate without a division. March 25th, it passed the House without a division, and was approved by the President, so that it became a law. It was promptly communicated to our ministers abroad by a circular from the Department of State.

1 Statutes at Large, Vol. XV. p. 23.