INEXPEDIENCY OF LETTERS OF MARQUE. LETTER TO A CITIZEN OF NEW YORK, MARCH 17, 1863. THE following letter, which appeared in the papers at the time, was written in the hope of preventing any action under the law of Congress authorizing letters of marque. Y DEAR SIR, WASHINGTON, March 17, 1863. In the freedom of that conversation which I had with you as we drove to the Capitol recently, allow me for a moment to speak again on the question which interested us then. . . I confess that I am anxious that the issuing of letters of marque should be avoided, not merely because it will give us a bad name without commensurate good, nor because it will be a departure from the early and often declared policy of our Government, which has not hesitated, by the pen of Benjamin Franklin and John Quincy Adams, to denounce privateering as an "enormity," but because it does not meet, in a practical way, the precise necessity of this time. People who advocate it are obviously misled by the experience of another generation, when we were at war with a nation whose commerce was a temptation and a reward to private enterprise. The case is so different now that the old agency is entirely inapplicable. The privateer cruises for booty, which is in lieu of rations and pay to officers and men, and of hire and compensation to owners. But if the booty does not exist, or if it is in such inconsiderable quantity as to afford small chance of valuable prize, evidently you must find some other system of compensation; as this cannot be, you must abandon the idea of private enterprise stimulated and sustained by booty. An agency must be found applicable to the present case, precisely as in machinery a force is found best calculated to do the required work. Now our present business is to help the Government capture the Alabama and her piratical comrades, and also to catch blockade-runners. But a letter of marque is not proper for this purpose, nor will the chance of booty be the best way to stimulate and sustain the cruiser, while, on the other hand, it is obvious that such a ship, invested with the belligerent right of search, in the quest of booty, will be tempted to exercise it on neutral commerce, and thus become the occasion of contention and strife with foreign powers. Privateers have never been remarkable for the caution or reserve with which they employ belligerent rights. I would not exaggerate the troubles that might ensue; but when I think of these sea-rovers, with license to overhaul neutral ships and to inflict upon them visitation and search, I feel how much evil may ensue compared with the good. You would not threaten a whole street in order to catch a few robbers who had sought shelter in some of its recesses, nor would you burn down your house, according to the amusing story of Charles Lamb, in order to roast a pig. It seems to be only according to common prudence, that private enterprise, if enlisted now, should be regulated by the object in view. To this end, it is not neces sary that it should assume a form calculated to awaken solicitude. The way is simple. If citizens are willing to unite in efforts of the Government, let them place their ships at its disposal, to be commissioned as national ships, and let the Government, on its part, offer bounty and prize money, in addition to pay and rations, for the capture of the Alabama and her piratical comrades. The motive power will thus be adapted to the object, while our country will be saved from all chance of additional complication, and also from the stigma of reviving a policy which civilization condemns. The argument of economy is sometimes pressed. But it is poor economy to employ an agency which in its very nature is inapplicable. Besides, I doubt if any success reasonably expected from such ships, called by the French corsaires, will be a compensation for the bad name they will give us, and the bad passions they will engender. I hope I do not take too great a liberty in sending you this sequel to our conversation. At all events, you will be pleased to accept my best wishes, and believe me, my dear Sir, with much regard, Very faithfully yours, CHARLES SUMNER. JOHN AUSTIN STEVENS, Jr., Esq., &c., &c., &c. UNITY FOR THE SAKE OF FREEDOM, AND FREEDOM FOR THE SAKE OF UNITY. LETTER TO A PUBLIC MEETING AT CLEVELAND, OHIO, MAY 18, 1863. WASHINGTON, May 18, 1863. ENTLEMEN,- It will not be in my power to take GE part in the generous meeting to assemble at Cleveland, but I pray you to accept my thanks for the cordial invitation with which you have honored me. If it were my privilege to speak on that occasion, I should urge upon my fellow-citizens everywhere the duty of Unity for the sake of Freedom, and also of Freedom for the sake of Unity. The two cannot be separated. They are mutually dependent. Let this people continue united, and Freedom must surely prevail. Let Freedom prevail, and this people cannot cease to be united. With such a cause, there is but one side and one duty. Whoever is for the Unity of the Republic must be for Freedom, and whoever is for Freedom must be for the Unity of the Republic. It is vain to think that one can be advanced without the other. Whoever is against one is against the other, and whoever is lukewarm for one is lukewarm for the other. We must be fervid and strong for both. This is not the time for doubt or hesitation. We |