“He is a native of my own State; from early boyhood he has been an exemplary Christian, a member of a religious denomination; and when the phrase is used in that letter, professing to have been written by Trusten Polk, that he had to ‘ante up $200,’ I am satisfied the language is not the language of Trusten Polk. He is not familiar with scenes where hundreds of dollars are ‘anted up.’”
Mr. Sumner replied:—
I do not pretend to an opinion on the genuineness of the letter. Like the Senator from Delaware, I have seen it in several newspapers, and my attention has been specially called to it by correspondents in Missouri, who write that its genuineness cannot be doubted. But this is a question for the Committee.
If I understand the Senator, his argument against the genuineness of the letter is founded on a phrase which he thinks Trusten Polk could never have written: it is a phrase of doubtful style or taste, showing bad associations. I am not familiar enough with Trusten Polk to sit in judgment on his style, nor is the Senate called to any such responsibility; but we are to sit in judgment on his public conduct, and if the letter is not a forgery, there can be no question as to our duty.
Believing the inquiry important, not doubting the duty of the Senate to purge itself of traitors who have too long found sanctuary in its Chamber, and satisfied that the country justly expects this to be done, I have felt bound to introduce the resolution.
But there is more than the letter. The Senate has heard within a few days that this person has found his way to Memphis. Why is he at Memphis, when he should be at Washington?
Some time afterwards Mr. Sumner received from Missouri the very letter, in the undoubted autograph of Mr. Polk, and with the phrase which it was insisted he could not have written.
January 9, 1862, Mr. Ten Eyck, of New Jersey, reported the resolution from the Committee, with the unanimous recommendation that it pass.
January 10, the resolution was adopted without debate: Yeas, 36; Nays, 0.