Mr. President, as a Republic, we are bound to the most strenuous care, so that our example may not in any way suffer. If we fail, then does Republican Government everywhere feel the shock. For the sake of others as well as of ourselves must we guard our conduct. How often do I insist that we cannot at any moment, or in any transaction, forget these great responsibilities! As no man “liveth to himself,” so no nation “liveth” to itself; especially is this the condition of the Great Republic. By the very name it bears, and by its lofty dedication to the rights of human nature, is it vowed to all those things which contribute most to civilization, keeping its example always above suspicion. That great political philosopher, Montesquieu, announces that the animating sentiment of Monarchy is “Honor,” but the animating sentiment of a Republic is “Virtue.”[24] I would gladly accept this flattering distinction. Therefore, in the name of that Virtue which should inspire our Government and keep it forever above all suspicion, do I move this inquiry. On this whole matter the Senate will act as it thinks best, ordering that investigation which the case requires. For myself I have but one desire, which is, that this effort, begun in the discharge of a patriotic duty, may redound to the good of our country, and especially to the purity of the public service. APPENDIX. (A.) Page 15. AUTHORITIES REFERRED TO IN SPEECH. Wheaton, our great authority, in Lawrence’s edition, page 727, quotes Vattel as laying down the rule of neutrality:-- “To give no assistance where there is no previous stipulation to give it; nor voluntarily to furnish troops, arms, ammunition, or anything of direct use in war.” Vattel, as quoted, then says:-- “I do not say, _To give assistance equally_, but, _To give no assistance_; for it would be absurd that a State should assist at the same time two enemies.”--_Le Droit des Gens_, Liv. III. ch. vii. § 104. Another home authority, the late General Halleck, in his work on International Law, after speaking of merchants engaged in selling ships and munitions of war to a belligerent, says:-- “The act is wrong in itself, and the penalty results from his violation of moral duty as well as of law. The duties imposed upon the citizens and subjects flow from exactly the same principle as those which attach to the government of neutral States.” He then says, quoting another:-- “By these acts he makes himself personally a party to a war in which, as a neutral, he had no right to engage, and his property is justly treated as that of an enemy.”--_International Law_, p. 631. Our other home authority, Professor Woolsey, in his work on International Law, section 162, says:--