receive and accept the title to League Island, near Philadelphia, unless Congress should otherwise direct. The site had been offered by the city of Philadelphia, for Navy-yard purposes; but the advantages of New London, for such an establishment on the north Atlantic coast, were being strongly pressed, and in his perplexity over the "conflicting reports and the conditions annexed to the law authorizing the Secretary to receive and accept League Island" (conditions as to title and desirability on technical grounds), that official "thought it more respectful to delay action until Congress should convene." He added that "as neither the harbor of New London nor the waters of Narragansett Bay are adapted to the purpose and wants of an iron Navy, whatever may be their advantages in other respects, and as League Island has the requisites of fresh water, security from external enemies, and proximity to iron and coal, I propose to receive and accept for the Government the munificent donation of the city of Philadelphia, unless Congress shall otherwise direct." Wilmot's argument was brief, and the substance of it is summarized in his first paragraph and his conclusion: I do not desire to detain the Senate, and shall detain them but a very few moments. The senator from Connecticut (Mr. Foster) told us that this was a question of economy; that the expense of accepting the offer made by the city of Philadelphia to the Government of League Island, would involve such an amount of expenditure on the part of the Government as would make it impolitic for us to accept their offer. I submit to Senators that it is not a question of expenditure. It is not a question as to how much it will require the Government to expend in filling up and making permanent the marshy lands connected with League Island. It is a question of permanent value to the country. We are now called upon to establish a Navy yard, not of the ordinary character; not a yard for the building of wooden vessels of war; but to establish a yard for the construction, safe-keeping and preservation of ironclad vessels of war. That is what we now require, and that only; and whether it will cost $1,000,000 or $5,000,000 to give to League Island the necessary facilities for this purpose, is really not a very important question to us. The great question is, what will be its value when established? Will it be secure from a foreign enemy? Will League Island give security to us? So far as relates to this great consideration, there can be no choice between the two places mentioned-between New London and League Island. The one is upon the sea, and is within the reach of long-range guns from the sea, and could be battered down by vessels of war from the sea, and is within a distance of three or four miles from the sea. The other is a distance of some seventy or eighty miles from the ocean, and rendered as secure as it is possible to render a Navy yard. . . . Then the remaining consideration is-and those are the only two considerations that ought to control this question, or to influence the action of the Senators-are the waters of League Island adapted to ironclad vessels, and will the waters of New London destroy ironclad vessels? There is but one answer to give to that question in the one case the water is fresh, in the other it is salt; one destroys iron vessels, in the other they can ride with perfect security and safety." The Senate passed the resolution against acceptance, then reconsidered their action, and at the end of the session, left the choice still indeterminate. 6 Wilmot's other recorded remarks-the last, with one exception, that he made on the floor of the Senate, were in connection with the Conscription Bill, and more especially the exemptions provided for in the second section of that act. Dixon, of Connecticut, had offered an amendment adding "the only son of a widow, wholly or in part dependent on him for support." Wilmot rose to make the amendment read, "the only son liable to military duty, of a widow wholly or in part dependent," etc. He pointed out that "she might have two or three young sons who could by no possibility contribute to 5 Cong. Globe, p. 497. 6 This later utterance was his declaration, Feb. 28, 1863, that southern officers who resigned from the Union army on account of the emancipation proclamation ought to be court-martialed. Cong. Globe, p. 1387. her support, and the only son who did contribute to her support might be liable to military duty, and under this provision would be exposed to be taken off," while if she thus had other sons of tender age for whom she must provide, "certainly the circumstances under which she is placed are much stronger in favor of exempting the son that does contribute to her support and is liable to military duty." And so the Senate agreed. 997 While Wilmot took a journeyman's part, not only in committee but on the floor, in shaping, amending and adjusting most of the important measures, whether bills or resolutions, considered at this session, his attitude toward the prosecution of the war and the great activities of the Government can be best seen in a condensed picture of results. 9 10 He voted against every move toward interference with, or cross-catechism of, the Administration in its summary dealings with insurrectionary proceedings-against a demand by Saulsbury for explanation of certain arrests in Delaware;" against Powell's proposed inquiry into General Grant's expulsion of a certain class of citizens from the department under his command; against a request to the President for information concerning the court-martial of Gen. Fitz John Porter; against Powell's attempt to curb the President's power to suspend the habeas corpus act where a state of insurrection existed,11 and a similar effort by Carlile, of Virginia, on another occasion; 12 against a resolution by Powell for investigation of arrests and imprisonments in Illinois,13 and another by the same senator aimed against the action of Colonel Gilbert in dispersing a public meeting in that State.14 11 He voted for the joint resolution providing for immediate payment of the Army and Navy; 15 in favor of a bill for the encouragement of reënlistments, and for its provision that Cong. Globe, p. 980. 8 Senate Journal, p. 53 9 Senate Journal, p. 92. 10 Senate Journal, p. 153. 12 Senate Journal, pp. 319, 320. 14 Senate Journal, pp. 410, 411. 11 Senate Journal, pp. 288, 289. the President should take all means to enroll and draft the militia 16. -a provision which Carlile, of Virginia, sought to eliminate. He supported the Conscription act throughout its course, and is recorded as voting on various sections and amendments, though he was not present at the time of its passage. He opposed Powell's attempt to introduce an exemption for conscientious objectors," and the efforts by Bayard, of Delaware, to weaken or limit the section providing for the punishment of espionage and the infliction of the death penalty.18 He voted, also, for the bill providing for suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus,1o etc., and another "to indemnify the President and others for suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and acts done in pursuance thereof," opposing every amendment tending to weaken the force of the bills or hamper the Executive arm in dealing with rebellion.20 He sought, also, to advance consideration of a bill to facilitate the transportation of troops, etc.21 He supported the internal revenue act and the general appropriation bill, and specifically a significant amendment to the latter adding an appropriation of $20,000 for an investigation into the practicability of cultivating or preparing flax and hemp as substitutes for cotton.22 He sustained, in fact, the appropriations generally, except that for the support of the military academy at West Point 23 and the proposed addition to the sundry civil appropriations of the sum of $100,000 to encourage immigration from Europe." He voted (Feb. 12, 1863) for the bill "to provide a National currency secured by a pledge of United States stock, and for the circulation and redemption thereof," 25 more familiarly known as the National Bank Act of 1863. 16 Senate Journal, p. 196. 17 Senate Journal, p. 372. Anthony, of Rhode Island, tried again to introduce this amendment in the Engineer Corps Bill, Mar. 2, and Wilmot again voted against it. Senate Journal, p. 388. 19 Senate Journal, p. 321. 21 Senate Journal, pp. 277, 278. 18 Senate Journal, p. 373. 20 Senate Journal, pp. 156-163. 22 Senate Journal, pp. 183, 185. 25 Senate Journal, p. 241. 23 Senate Journal, p. 112. 24 Senate Journal, p. 427. "The principal features of this comprehensive scheme [to quote Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, a History, Vol. VI, p. 245] were to open to private capital the business of National banking so freely that there could be no reasonable accusation of privilege or monopoly; to give to the whole system of banks a homogeneous circulation of notes, having a common impression, authenticated by a common authority, made safe by an adequate provision of specie, and secured for redemption by the pledge of United States bonds deposited in Washington." It was one of the greatest pieces of financial legislation in the history of the country, ranking even above the Subtreasury Bill for which Wilmot had voted early in his congressional career. And in an address by John Jay Knox, comptroller of the currency, delivered November 27, 1880, it was pointed out that David Wilmot was one of the three, only, senators from the middle States who voted for the National Bank Act, the others being Ten Eyck, of New Jersey and Ira Harris, of New York. When the bill was revised and repassed the following year, Wilmot's successors in the Senate from the State of Pennsylvania were not so wise. They voted against it. He voted yea on the bills for providing a temporary government in the territory of Arizona,26 and for enabling the people of Nevada to form a constitutional government, and for the admission of that State into the Union; 27 but he voted against a similar bill in favor of Colorado,28 and the bill creating a temporary government for the territory of Idaho.2 29 His attitude toward the colored race is suggested by a number of items in his legislative record. He favored the abolition of the "black code" in the District of Columbia, and the removal of disqualification as a witness on account of color; in connection with a bill extending the charter of the Washington and Alexandria (street) railway, he voted for Sumner's amendment "that no person shall be excluded from the 26 Senate Journal, p. 300. 27 Senate Journal, p. 417. 28 Senate Journal, p. 423. 29 Senate Journal, p. 415. |