Charles Sumner

Imitating the Popes in Nepotism, the President has imitated them in ostentatious assumption of Infallibility.

Lawyers cite what are called “Leading Cases.” A few of these show the Presidential will in constant operation with little regard to precedent or reason, so as to be a caprice, if it were not a pretension.

Bad as are these two capital instances, and important as is their condemnation, so that they may not become a precedent, I dwell on them now as illustrating character.

I have now completed the survey of the two typical instances--Nepotism, and Gift-Taking with repayment by office--in which we are compelled to see the President.

Who,” said he, “ever heard before of a man nominated Secretary of State merely as a compliment?” But this is only another case of the public service subordinated to personal considerations.

Again do I repeat the words of our Scriptures, “A gift doth blind the eyes of the wise”; again the words of Washington, “Should I not thenceforward be considered as a dependant?

Notoriously he has appointed to his Cabinet several among these “Greeks bearing gifts,” without seeming to see the indecorum, if not the indecency, of the transaction.

It would be easy to show how in all ages the refusal of gifts has been recognized as the sign of virtue, if not the requirement of duty.

By such instances, brought to light recently, and shining in contrast with our times, we learn to admire anew the virtue of Washington.

How admirably he touches the point when he asks, “Should I not thenceforward be considered as a dependant?” According to our Scripture the gift blinds the eyes; according to Washington it makes the receiver a dependant.

In our country Washington keeps his lofty heights, setting himself against gift-taking as against nepotism.

What is done under the influence of a gift is mercenary; but whether from ruler to subject or from subject to ruler, the gift is equally pernicious.

The country will judge it, and blot it out as an example.

For a public man to take gifts is reprehensible; for a President to select Cabinet councillors and other officers among those from whom he has taken gifts is an anomaly in republican annals.

Sometimes public men even in our country have taken gifts, but it is not known that any President before has repaid the patron with office.

From a dropsical Nepotism swollen to elephantiasis, which nobody can defend, I pass to Gift-Taking, which with our President has assumed an unprecedented form.

Here I leave for the present this enormous unrepublican pretension, waiting to hear if it can again find an apologist.

But no such merit is attributed to the beneficiaries of our President, some of whom have done little but bring scandal upon the public service.

But is it not for the public good that they should be excluded?

But now this degrading rule is extended, and we are told that to the President’s family belong the spoils.

It is impossible to deny the soundness of this requirement and its completeness as an answer to one of the apologies.

Let John Adams, who did not hesitate to bestow office upon a few relations of unquestioned merit, judge this pretension.

To Jefferson’s sense of public duty John Quincy Adams added the sense of personal delicacy, both strong against such appointment of relations.

A President suspected of weakness for his relations is already shorn of strength.

This can be only by an example of unselfish devotion to the public weal which shall be above suspicion.