Chapter XVII: Section 7: And be it further enacted, That, after the appointment of (1)

a candidate recommended by the Board, he shall not be removed except for good cause, and promotions shall be according to seniority, which shall be determined in all cases by the dates of the recommendations of the Board and the rank therein assigned; but it shall be allowable to make one fifth of the promotions on account of merit irrespective of seniority.

This bill found an unexpected response from the public press.
The _National Intelligencer_, at Washington, welcomed it.

“The object of this bill commands our entire approval, and
we hope it may equally receive the approval of Congress.
Its passage, more than any other single decision that could
be taken by Congress in the way of needed reforms, would
tend to correct abuses which threaten our whole political
system with wreck and ruin.”

The _Evening Post_, of New York, was equally explicit.

“This bill, if passed, would do away with what has become
one of the most serious vices in our political life, the
‘Spoils system,’ as it has been appropriately called.
Congress should, as soon as possible, provide some rules
for the reformation of this universal evil. The patronage
of the President and his Cabinet officers has increased, is
increasing, and ought to be diminished; it has become, by
the extension of the country, the increase of population
and wealth, and especially through the circumstances of the
present war, so vast as to be dangerous to the nation, if
it should chance to fall into the hands of unscrupulous and
wicked men. But, besides this, it is manifestly impossible
to carry on the immense business of the Government without
extraordinary and ruinous loss and waste, under the old
system of turning out the occupants of civil offices every
four years. The Government thus virtually refuses the
services of trained men, familiar with the office routine.
If we desire public affairs to be administered honestly
and economically, Congress must provide for the numerous
servants of the Government regular grades of promotion,
retention of office during good behavior, and, if possible,
a small retiring pension, which might be arranged in the
shape of an annuity and life insurance combined.”

The New York _Times_ noticed it at length, beginning,--

“Mr. Sumner has introduced a bill into the Senate, which,
owing to the general absorption of the public attention
in the great events which are taking place in the field,
will probably not attract much notice; but it nevertheless
attempts to deal with a matter which is of more importance,
we venture to say, to the stability of this Government
than any other one thing except the extinction of the
Rebellion. It is neither more nor less than a sweeping
measure of administrative reform, obliging all candidates
for situations in the public service to pass an examination
before a board appointed for the purpose, giving them
their offices during good behavior, and with promotion
through the various grades in the order of seniority, and a
retiring pension after a certain term of service.”

The _New Nation_, of New York, said:--

“Mr. Sumner has recently brought a bill in the Senate to
regulate the conditions of admission to public offices of
the highest importance to the country. This bill is based
upon the most equitable, the most sincerely republican,
and the most progressive principles as yet adopted in
any country. We have not sufficient space to review
this project at present. At the first glance we find it
deficient only in one respect, namely, in carrying respect
for seniority to too great an extent. If this bill is
passed, the era of inefficiency and favoritism, hitherto
prevailing, will be at an end.”

The New Bedford _Mercury_ said:--

“Mr. Sumner’s bill will cure the evils of which every
sensible man now complains, and avert the terrible dangers
which menace us. It contemplates a return to the practice
of the better days of the republic, and making that
practice the rule. ‘Is he capable? Is he honest?’ were the
inquiries propounded by Jefferson, when a candidate for
office was named.”

The New York _World_ devoted a leading article to the bill,
which it criticized.

“We had supposed, that, in the opinion of Mr. Sumner,
the disposition to be made of black men came nearest, in
legislative importance, to the crushing out of the Rebels.…
Mr. Sumner’s bill does not touch the evil in our clerical
system. The difficulty is not in want of examination,
classification, promotion, or pension, but springs, in the
first place, out of the manner in which the President,
through the heads of departments, exercises the appointing
power, and, in the next place, out of the conduct of
the clerks themselves, when in office. An examining
board cannot change the general character of the men the
President, directly or indirectly, sends before it.”

These notices show the interest excited by this effort. In the
various labors which occupied Mr. Sumner he was not able to
give it the attention it required. Meanwhile the cause found an
able advocate elsewhere.

The next step was by Hon. Thomas A. Jenckes, of Rhode Island,
who introduced into the House of Representatives, December
20, 1865, a bill “To regulate the Civil Service of the United
States,” which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Subsequently a special committee was appointed on the Civil
Service of the United States, with Mr. Jenckes as Chairman, and
June 13, 1866, he reported his bill to the House. Then again,
at the next session, he reported another bill, “To regulate the
Civil Service of the United States, and promote the efficiency
thereof,” which he sustained by a forcible and elaborate
speech; but the bill was laid on the table,--Yeas 72, Nays 66.
Other efforts followed at subsequent sessions, but without
success.

* * * * *

Meanwhile, in the Senate, on motion of Mr. Trumbull, of
Illinois, March 3, 1871, the following section was attached to
the General Appropriation Bill, then pending:--

“That the President of the United States be, and he is
hereby, authorized to prescribe such rules and regulations
for the admission of persons into the Civil Service of the
United States as will best promote the efficiency thereof,
and ascertain the fitness of each candidate, in respect
to age, health, character, knowledge, and ability, for
the branch of service into which he seeks to enter; and
for this purpose the President is authorized to employ
suitable persons to conduct said inquiries, to prescribe
their duties, and to establish regulations for the conduct
of persons who may receive appointments in the Civil
Service.”[341]

Under this provision President Grant appointed the following
Commissioners: George William Curtis, of New York; Alexander G.
Cattell, of New Jersey; Joseph Medill, of Illinois; and Dawson
A. Walker, E. B. Elliott, Joseph H. Blackfan, and David C. Cox,
of the District of Columbia: who, after careful consideration
during the summer and autumn, submitted a report December 18,
1871, with a schedule of rules and regulations, all of which
was promptly communicated to Congress by the President.

COLORED SUFFRAGE IN WASHINGTON.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON BILLS TO AMEND THE CITY CHARTER, MAY 12, 26, 27, 28, 1864.

February 13th, Mr. Harlan, of Iowa, asked, and by unanimous
consent obtained, leave to bring in a bill to amend section
five of an Act entitled “An Act to continue, alter, and amend
the charter of the city of Washington,” approved May 17, 1848,
and further to preserve the purity of elections and guard
against the abuse of the elective franchise, by a registration
of electors for the city of Washington, in the District of
Columbia; which was read the first and second time, and
referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

March 8th, Mr. Dixon, from the Committee, reported the bill
without amendment.

March 17th, the bill was taken up and amended in unimportant
particulars.

May 6th, it was again taken up, when, after an amendment moved
by Mr. Dixon, Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, moved to amend the
bill in the first section by inserting the word “white” before
the word “male,” so as to confine the right of voting in
Washington to white male citizens. Mr. Sumner said at once, “I
hope not.” Mr. Cowan then spoke in favor of his amendment.

May 12th, Mr. Cowan remarked that the bill “would have the
effect, in some cases, of admitting negroes to the right of
suffrage, which, I may say, is obnoxious to the vast bulk of
the people of the Border States.” Mr. Harlan would vote for Mr.
Cowan’s amendment, “first, because it is manifest to the Senate
that the bill, without that provision in it, cannot now become
a law.” Mr. Willey, of West Virginia, spoke elaborately against
colored suffrage, winding up with this interrogatory: “Shall
we, without any petitions from the people of this District,
without anything before the Senate to indicate that this
bill, in any of its parts, is required by the people of this
District, undertake to say, of our own volition, that we will
impose upon them a provision which is odious to them, and will,
in my estimation, be disastrous in its results, not only here,
but in its influence on popular opinion everywhere in this
nation?”

Mr. Sumner followed.

MR. PRESIDENT,--Slavery dies hard. It still stands front to front with our embattled armies, holding them in check. It dies hard on the battle-field. It dies hard in the Senate Chamber. We have been compelled during this session to hear various defences of Slavery, sometimes in its most offensive forms. Slave-hunting has been openly vindicated. And now, to-day, the exclusion of colored persons from the electoral franchise, simply on account of color, is openly vindicated, and the Senator from West Virginia, newly introduced into this Chamber from a State born of Freedom, rises here to uphold Slavery in one of its meanest products.

MR. WILLEY. Mr. President, I cannot pass that assertion
without giving it an unequivocal, categorical denial. I have
not vindicated Slavery in any of its aspects. I said to the
Senator, what perhaps he did not hear before, that, when he has
liberated by the sweat of his brow as many slaves as I have, he
can get up and make such a remark in regard to me.

MR. SUMNER. I said, Sir, that the Senator vindicated Slavery in one of its meanest products. I repeat what I said. The Senator has spoken, I do not know how long by the clock, to vindicate an odious prejudice bequeathed by Slavery, having its origin in Slavery, and in nothing else. Had Slavery never existed among us, there would have been no such prejudice as that of which the Senator makes himself the representative. Far better would it be for that Senator, who comes into this Chamber as the representative of a new-born free State, had he surrendered generously to the sentiment in which West Virginia had its birth. But, instead, he comes forward and labors with unwonted earnestness to perpetuate at the national capital an odious feature derived from Slavery. The Senator says he has not vindicated Slavery. If he has not used the word, he has vindicated the thing, in one of its most odious features. He seeks to blast a whole race merely on account of color. Would he ever have proposed such injustice, but for the prejudices nursed by Slavery? Had not Slavery existed, would any such idea have found place in a Senator naturally so generous and humane? No, Sir,--he spoke with the voice of Slavery, which he cannot yet forget. He spoke under the unhappy and disturbing influences which Slavery has left in his mind.

Now, Sir, I am against Slavery, wherever it shows itself, whatever form it takes. I am against Slavery, when compelled to meet it directly; and I am against Slavery in all its products and its offspring. I am against Slavery, when encountering the beast outright, or only its tail. The prejudices of which the Senator makes himself the representative to-day, permit me to say, are nothing but the tail of Slavery. Unhappily, while we have succeeded in abolishing Slavery in this District, we have not yet abolished the tail; and the tail has representatives in the Senate Chamber, as the beast once had.

We have been reminded that we are engaged in a fearful conflict. The Senator has reminded us of it. Senators nearer to me have reminded us of it. This is too true; and now, as that conflict lowers, I invoke the spirit of our fathers. They went forth to battle with the Declaration of Independence on their lips, solemnly declaring that all men are born equal, entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They introduced no discrimination of color into that sacred text, nor into the contemporary Articles of Confederation, nor into the Constitution of the United States, which was the work of their hands. I am content to be guided by their example. As they went forth to meet the enemy, they placed themselves under the protection of the God of Justice. Let us imitate them.

I had not intended to say a word on this occasion; but I could not listen to the remarks of the Senator, so harsh and unfeeling toward a whole race, belonging to the human family, like himself, without interposing a solemn protest.

Since this debate began, I have sent to the Law Library for a volume containing the authoritative words of a distinguished Southern jurist, a slaveholder, with regard to the electoral franchise. It has been a question, in what States, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, colored persons enjoyed this franchise. I say nothing now about the more northern States; but there is a State, sometimes referred to, with regard to which there is peculiar evidence: I mean North Carolina. The enjoyment of the electoral franchise by colored persons in that State for a long time after the Constitution is not a matter of doubt. Her most eminent magistrate, the late Mr. Justice Gaston, accomplished as a jurist and as a man, whom I remember well in most agreeable personal intercourse, laid down the law of his State in emphatic words. Pronouncing the opinion of the Supreme Court of North Carolina in the case of _The State_ v. _Manuel_, in 1838, he said:--

“Slaves manumitted here become freemen, and therefore, if born
within North Carolina, are citizens of North Carolina; and all
free persons born within the State are born citizens of the
State.… The Constitution extended the elective franchise to
every freeman who had arrived at the age of twenty-one and paid
a public tax; _and it is a matter of universal notoriety, that,
under it, free persons, without regard to color, claimed and
exercised the franchise, until it was taken from free men of
color a few years since by our amended Constitution_.”[342]

There is still another case, that of _The State_ v. _Newsom_, which was decided in 1844, where the Supreme Court of North Carolina, after citing the opinion of Judge Gaston from which I have just read, proceeds:--

“That case underwent a very laborious investigation, both by
the bar and the bench.… The case was brought here by appeal,
and was felt to be one of great importance in principle. It was
considered with an anxiety and care worthy of the principle
involved, and which gave it a controlling influence and
authority on all questions of a similar character.”[343]

Therefore not hastily or carelessly did the Supreme Court of North Carolina declare colored persons to be voters under the State Constitution.

Such was the constitutional law of North Carolina, fashioned by our fathers under the influence of the Declaration of Independence. Sir, I am content with that law. I do not think the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. COWAN], though he represents a Northern State, can mend that law from a Slave State. Nor do I think that any of us on this floor can feel humbled, if our judgment is postponed to that of Judge Gaston of North Carolina, who did not hesitate to declare positively the constitutional law of human rights, by virtue of which colored persons are citizens. And if they are citizens, how can you deny them the electoral franchise?

I am content to leave the question here, adding, that, as I understand it, I shall deem it my duty to vote against all propositions creating any discrimination of color. At this moment of revolution, when our country needs the blessing of Almighty God and the strong arms of all her children, this is not the time for us solemnly to enact injustice. In duty to our country, and in duty to God, I plead against any such thing. We must be against Slavery in its original shape, and in all its brood of prejudice and error.

This bill was never considered again; but the question of
colored suffrage in Washington reappeared.

May 24th, Mr. Wade, from the Committee on the District of
Columbia, reported a joint resolution to amend the charter of
the city of Washington, which was read twice and considered
as in Committee of the Whole. In reporting it, he said: “It
relates to the registration of voters; and if it is to be
passed at all, it ought to be passed immediately. I believe
there is no objection to it. It alters none of the present
qualifications of voters, but improves the present law as to
registration, which is very defective.”

May 26th, the consideration of the joint resolution was
resumed, when Mr. Sumner said:--

Examining this joint resolution, I find that it is entitled “A Resolution to amend the charter of the city of Washington.” In that aspect it is important. Looking into it, I find the provision,--

“That, in case any person shall offer and claim the right to
vote at any election held in the city of Washington, whose
name is not registered, his name shall be registered by the
Commissioners of Election upon the terms and conditions
following.”

It will be observed that the language is very broad. It is applicable to any person who shall offer and claim the right to vote at any election; and his name shall be registered upon certain specified conditions. The first condition is, that he shall take a certain oath; and if unable to understand the English language, it is further provided that the oath shall be interpreted to him: so that this clause actually contemplates that certain persons shall be registered who do not speak the English language. It then proceeds:--

“If in his answers on oath he shall state positively that he
has resided in the city one year next preceding the day of said
election, designating particularly the place of his residence,
and that he possesses the other qualifications of an elector,
and if, furthermore, some qualified elector of the city, not
a candidate for any office at that election, shall take an
oath before said Commissioners, which any one of them may
administer, that he is well acquainted with such applicant,
that he is, in fact, a resident in the city, and has been one
year next previous to such election, and that he (qualified
elector) has good reason to believe, and does believe, that all
the statements of such applicant are true, the Commissioners
shall cause his name to be registered by their clerk, and shall
then receive the vote of said applicant.”

Now it is at once perceived from these words, that they are directly applicable, in the first place, to any person who shall offer and claim the right to vote at an election; but, after taking the oath, he is to show residence for a certain term in the city, and also that “he possesses the other qualifications of an elector.” What are “the other qualifications of an elector”? I presume, if we go back to the original charter, we shall find it is that qualification which, as I said the other day, is the tail of Slavery,--that discrimination of color left to us, unhappily, by the former presence of Slavery in the national capital. I know not if the Committee propose to keep alive that ancient and odious discrimination; but it seems to me, that, if the language of this joint resolution be interpreted according to its natural signification, and certainly as such language is apt to be interpreted here in Washington, it must operate to the exclusion of persons not of the favored color. I know my friend from Ohio does not contemplate such exclusion; but a joint resolution to amend the charter of the city of Washington ought to be made clear, and also in that respect unobjectionable; it ought not to be the means of continuing and of extending that odious discrimination. I therefore propose to amend it by adding these words:--

“_Provided_, That there shall be no exclusion of any person
from the register on account of color.”

* * * * *

Mr. Wade was in favor of colored suffrage; but the Committee,
in reporting this measure, did “not contemplate going into the
question of the right of suffrage, or extending that right
beyond those who are at present authorized to exercise it. It
does not widen the suffrage; it does not narrow it.”

Mr. Sumner began a reply to Mr. Wade.

MR. PRESIDENT,--The argument of my friend from Ohio was, that the measure now before the Senate is temporary in its character. That is inconsistent with the title of the joint resolution, which is as follows.

MR. WADE. Let me explain. I say temporary, because we all
know that there is a bill fixing the right of voting, that, I
suppose, is intended as a permanent law. This is temporary in
that view. That is all I meant.

MR. SUMNER. That certainly will not justify my friend in his argument, for on the face of it this is permanent. It is as permanent as anything else in the existing charter. Its title is, “A Resolution to amend the charter of the city of Washington.” When this is done, what assurance has my friend that anything else will be done? There is a bill on our tables. How many other bills are there on other matters which we may not reach during this session, or, if we reach, on which we cannot expect harmonious votes in the two Houses!

Here Mr. Sumner was interrupted by the Tax Bill, which was the
order of the day.

May 27th, Mr. Sumner resumed.

I was interrupted yesterday by other business, called up while I was replying to my friend from Ohio [Mr. WADE]. I did not propose any extended reply.

It is with pain that I differ from friends. But with me there is no choice. Here is a measure which opens the whole question of suffrage in the national capital, and assumes the form of amendment to the charter of the city of Washington. It provides that certain persons shall be registered, including even those who cannot speak English; but in positive terms _it continues and keeps alive the old rule founded on color_. Now, Sir, I cannot sanction any such rule directly or indirectly.

But it is said, that, in pressing my amendment, the original proposition may be lost. This I shall regret much; for I desire its passage sincerely. But I can see no reason why a discrimination of color should be made in the bill, or in our proceedings. If white persons are kept out of their rights, so are colored persons; and I would ask my friend from Ohio, Which has been kept out the longest? I am for the rights of both, to the end that we may have at last in the national capital _Equality before the law_.

We are shocked daily by the report of outrages upon colored persons. In Tennessee a colored woman has been murdered under the lash. Near Fortress Monroe another colored woman has been cruelly treated under the lash. This must be stopped. But I know no way so effective as to set an example of justice and humanity. If we sanction slave-hunting, if we disregard the rights of colored persons, if we treat them as inferior in condition, unhappily, Sir, there are others who will follow our example, and add a vindictive cruelty.

Therefore, insisting upon the rights of colored persons here, I insist upon their rights everywhere. Nor do I see how I can abandon their rights here without abandoning them everywhere. We are Senators of the United States, bound to consider the whole country in all its extent, and to do nothing here which shall do mischief elsewhere; nor can we yield to any local pressure, or any imagined local interests, and thus forget the cause of justice.

It is vain to say that this measure is temporary; for, in plain terms, it undertakes to amend the charter of Washington. It is vain to say, also, that there is another bill now on your calendar regulating this whole question. Who can say that this bill will become a law? Ay, Sir, who can say, that, in the hurried hours of these closing days of a weary session, the bill will even be considered again? And yet on these grounds we are asked to abandon the present assertion of the rights of colored persons. If the bill conferring these rights can pass, so also can the present measure. If it be practical to assert these rights on one bill, it is equally practical to assert them on another, where such assertion is germane. It only remains that Senators should stand firm.

For myself, I will not sanction injustice; nor will I miss any opportunity of asserting the rights of an oppressed race. I may be alone; but, to the extent of my powers, I mean to be right.

Mr. Morrill appealed to Mr. Sumner to withdraw his opposition,
saying: “Now, as a question of practical statesmanship, I
submit to my honorable friend whether it is not the part of
wisdom to say we will do this now and we will consider the
other question when it comes up.” Mr. Harlan moved to amend by
adding, “who have borne arms in the military service of the
United States, and have been honorably discharged therefrom.”
This amendment, limiting Mr. Sumner’s proposition, was agreed
to,--Yeas 26, Nays 12.

May 28th, Mr. Sumner spoke again, and adduced the details of
the recent outrage in Tennessee, saying, in conclusion:--

We all feel, Sir, the brutality of this act. It was done by a white man on the person of a colored woman. Would he have been the author of such a brutality, had the woman been white? No; because she was black, he thus insulted human nature, and performed an act never to be read without a blush that he is a member of the human family. And how are we to discountenance such acts? Is it by keeping alive this odious discrimination of color, by imparting to it the sanction of law, by investing it with the authority of this Chamber? I appeal to you, Senators, as men of humanity, do not continue a discrimination, which, proceeding from this Chamber, must exercise a far-reaching influence. It is not simply the question of a few voters more or less in the District, but it is a question of human rights everywhere throughout this land, involving the national character and its good name forevermore.

Again, in reply to Mr. Reverdy Johnson, Mr. Sumner said:--

But the Senator thinks that I am not logical, because I quote an outrage in Tennessee having its origin in the prejudice of color, and insist that here in this Chamber we shall not found legislation on a prejudice of color. Sir, I submit the question to the judgment of the Senate: Am I illogical, or is the Senator so? I insist, Sir, that you cannot sanction injustice here, especially you cannot sanction a prejudice founded on color, without quickening that prejudice, and sustaining it, wherever it now unhappily exists throughout our whole country.

At the next stage of the joint resolution, the question
recurred on concurring with the amendment in Committee of the
Whole:--

“_Provided_, That there shall be no exclusion of any
persons from the register, on account of color, who have
borne arms in the military service of the United States,
and have been honorably discharged therefrom.”

And it was rejected,--Yeas 18, Nays 20. The joint resolution
was then passed.

And so this second battle for colored suffrage was lost.

VOTE OF BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS NECESSARY TO READMISSION OF REBEL STATES.

RESOLUTION IN THE SENATE, MAY 27, 1864.

The Senate having under consideration the credentials of
certain claimants as Senators from Arkansas, Mr. Sumner offered
the following resolution:--

_RESOLVED_, That a State pretending to secede from the Union, and battling against the National Government to maintain this pretension, must be regarded as a Rebel State, subject to military occupation, and without title to representation on this floor, until it has been readmitted by a vote of both Houses of Congress; and the Senate will decline to entertain any application from any such Rebel State, until after such vote of both Houses of Congress.

June 13th, on motion of Mr. Sumner, the resolution was referred
to the Committee on the Judiciary, at the same time with a
joint resolution by Mr. Lane, of Kansas, recognizing the
existing government of Arkansas, and also the credentials of
the claimants as Senators.

June 27th, Mr. Trumbull from the Committee reported adversely
on all these references.

The requirement of this resolution was affirmed by the Senate,
when it adopted the amendment of Mr. Gratz Brown to the
Reconstruction Bill of the House, July 1st,[344] and it became
a corner-stone of Reconstruction.

NO TAX ON BOOKS.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON AMENDMENT OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE BILL, JUNE 2 AND 6, 1864.

The Senator from New York [Mr. MORGAN] has proposed the exemption of a class of hospitals. I am in favor of his proposition. It is not now, however, under discussion. In similar spirit I move to strike out, on the one hundred and thirty-fifth page, lines two hundred and twelve, two hundred and thirteen, and two hundred and fourteen, as follows:--

“On all printed books, magazines, pamphlets, reviews, and all
other similar printed publications, except newspapers, a duty
of five per cent _ad valorem_.”

I make one remark on this tax. We do not tax wheat or corn, because they are the staff of life. In my judgment, a tax on books is less defensible than a tax on wheat or on corn. I believe books are the staff of life; and I believe that our country would do itself honor, if at this moment, when imposing a heavy tax upon all things, it deliberately exempted books. The tax proposed is applicable to all books,--books for family reading, for the library, and also for the school. All that we can get from the tax will be very small indeed. It will not add sensibly to the Treasury, but it will impose a burden upon knowledge. I hope, therefore, that the Senate will strike the words out.

The motion was rejected.

At the next stage of the bill Mr. Sumner renewed his motion to
strike out the tax on books, and then said:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--I am sorry to occupy the attention of the Senate, even for a moment, especially at this late stage of a protracted debate. But I feel that the question which I have presented is not adequately appreciated. I venture to say, that, in point of principle, few questions of equal importance have arisen on this bill.

The tax on books is peculiar, and, so far as I know, without precedent in other countries. In England paper has been taxed, but books not; here paper is to be taxed, and books too. For instance, there is to be a tax of three per cent on paper, and then five per cent additional on books, making a sum-total of eight per cent on books.

The tax of three per cent on paper seems contrary to sound policy. But the additional tax of five per cent on books is more indefensible still. I have already likened it to a tax on wheat or flour or bread, which you do not think of imposing. More than either of these is a book “the staff of life.” It may be likened also to a tax on the light of day, like the English window-tax, which you do not think of imposing. Better shut out the light of day than the light of books.

The book in some cases may be a luxury, but in most cases it is a necessary, while always the handmaid of civilization. It is for all ages and all conditions,--for young and old, for rich and poor, for the family circle as well as the library,--but it is especially for the school. In all these places you will enter and demand eight per cent on every book. Every book, if it had a voice, would repel the demand.

Why not be instructed by the example of England, when taxing everything taxable? Read the extensive list of articles taxed at the period of most searching and wide-spread taxation, and you do not find books. Read that marvellous enumeration made by the genius of Sydney Smith, and you do not find books.

“Taxes upon every article which enters into the mouth, or
covers the back, or is placed under the foot; taxes upon
everything which it is pleasant to see, hear, feel, smell,
or taste; taxes upon warmth, light, and locomotion; taxes
on everything on earth and the waters under the earth, on
everything that comes from abroad or is grown at home; taxes
on the raw material; taxes on every fresh value that is added
to it by the industry of man; taxes on the sauce which pampers
man’s appetite, and the drug that restores him to health,--on
the ermine which decorates the judge, and the rope which hangs
the criminal,--on the poor man’s salt, and the rich man’s
spice,--on the brass nails of the coffin, and the ribbons of
the bride,--at bed or board, couchant or levant,--we must pay.
The school-boy whips his taxed top; the beardless youth manages
his taxed horse with a taxed bridle on a taxed road; and the
dying Englishman, pouring his medicine which has paid seven
per cent into a spoon that has paid fifteen per cent, flings
himself back upon his chintz bed which has paid twenty-two per
cent, and expires in the arms of an apothecary who has paid a
license of a hundred pounds for the privilege of putting him to
death. His whole property is then immediately taxed from two
to ten per cent. Besides the probate, large fees are demanded
for burying him in the chancel; his virtues are handed down
to posterity on taxed marble; and he is then gathered to his
fathers, to be taxed no more.”[345]

A passage so exquisite in wit and language is seasonable here, especially when considering what shall be taxed; but I ask you to bear in mind that the English tax-gatherer never laid his hand on a book. Everything else he might touch,--a book never.

And yet in our country it is proposed to tax books. This is the land of public schools, where you boast that education, like justice, is free to all at the common cost. But a tax on books is in direct conflict with this beautiful principle. Every argument for free schools pleads also for free books,--at least for freedom from taxation. It will be a curious inconsistency to rear the school-house, often costly, where every child is welcomed without charge, and then compel him to pay a tax of eight per cent on every book he carries in his satchel.

There is one term which fitly characterizes this tax. It is a term adopted abroad, but more justly applicable to a tax on books than to any other tax: I mean _a tax on knowledge_. Such is the tax now proposed. And this tax, which cannot be named without awakening just condemnation, you are asked to make an American institution. After long struggle in England, the various _taxes on knowledge_ are abandoned. I hope that our country, representative and defender of liberal ideas, will not commence a system which modern civilization has disowned.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

The motion was lost,--Yeas 8, Nays 19.

CREATION OF THE FREEDMEN’S BUREAU: A BRIDGE FROM SLAVERY TO FREEDOM.

SPEECHES IN THE SENATE, ON BILLS AND CONFERENCE REPORTS CREATING A BUREAU OF FREEDMEN, JUNE 8, 14, 15, 1864, AND FEBRUARY 13, 21, 22, 1865.

March 1, 1864, after debate on different days in February, the
House of Representatives adopted a bill to establish a Bureau
of Freedmen’s Affairs.

March 2d, in the Senate, this bill was referred to the
Committee on Slavery and Freedmen, of which Mr. Sumner was
Chairman.

May 25th, Mr. Sumner reported the bill to the Senate with
a substitute. The intermediate period was occupied by the
Committee in a careful and laborious consideration of the
whole subject, involving the question of power proper for the
Bureau, whether it should be placed in the War Department or
in the Treasury Department, which already had the care of
abandoned lands. No less than nine different projects were
laid before the Committee, some by eminent citizens interested
in the freedmen, among whom were Hon. Robert Dale Owen, of
Indiana, Hon. John Jay, of New York, and Edward L. Pierce, of
Massachusetts. The House bill was not satisfactory. Mr. Owen
said, in a letter dated March 8th, “In my judgment the bill of
the House will not work.”

The bill reported by Mr. Sumner was drafted by him, and adopted
by the Committee. It was in ten sections, and began with these
words: “That an office is hereby created in the Treasury
Department, to be called the Bureau of Freedmen, meaning
thereby such persons as have become free since the beginning of
the present war.”

June 8th, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, when Mr.
Sumner explained and vindicated it.

MR. PRESIDENT,--The Senate only a short time ago was engaged for a week considering how to open an iron way from the Atlantic to the Pacific. It is now to consider how to open a way from Slavery to Freedom.

I regret much that only thus tardily we are able to take up the bill for a Bureau of Freedmen. But I trust that nothing will interfere with its consideration. In what I have to say, I shall confine myself to a simple statement. If I differ from others, I beg to be understood it is in no spirit of controversy and with no pride of opinion. Nothing of the kind can enter justly into any such discussion.

I shall not detain the Senate to set forth the importance of this measure. All must confess it at a glance. It is clearly a charity and a duty.

By virtue of existing Acts of Congress, and also under the Proclamation of the President, large numbers of slaves have suddenly become free. These may be counted by the hundred thousand. In the progress of victory they will be counted by the million.

As they derive their freedom from the United States, under legislative or executive acts, the National Government cannot be excused from making such provisions as may be required for their immediate protection and welfare during the present _transition period_. The freedom conferred must be rendered useful, or at least saved from being a burden. Reports, official and unofficial, show the necessity of action. In some places it is a question of life and death.

It is superfluous to quote at length from these reports, while all testify alike, whether from Louisiana, South Carolina, Fortress Monroe, Vicksburg, Tennessee, or Arkansas. I know not where the call is most urgent. It is urgent everywhere; and in some places it is the voice of distress.

Wherever our arms have prevailed, the old social system has been destroyed. Masters have fled, and slaves have assumed a new character. Released from former obligations, and often adrift in the world, they naturally look to the prevailing power. Here, for instance, is testimony which I take from an excellent report in the department of Tennessee, under date of April 29, 1863:--

“Negroes, in accordance with the Acts of Congress, free on
coming within our lines, circulated much like water; the task
was to care for and render useful.

“They rolled like eddies around military posts; many of the
men employed in accordance with Order No. 72, district West
Tennessee; women and children largely doing nothing but eating
and idling, the dupes of vice and crime, the unsuspecting
sources of disease.”

From this statement Senators may form an idea of the numbers seeking assistance.

The question is often asked as to the disposition of those persons to labor. Here, also, the testimony is explicit. I have in my hand the answers from different stations on this point.

“QUESTION. ‘What of their disposition to labor?’

“ANSWER. _Corinth._ ‘So far as I have tested it, better than I
expected; willing to work for money, except in waiting on the
sick. One hundred and fifty hands gathered five hundred acres
of cotton in less than three weeks, much of which time was bad
weather. The owner admitted that it was done more quickly than
it could have been done with slaves. When detailed for service,
they generally remained till honorably discharged, even when
badly treated. I am well satisfied, from careful calculations,
that the contrabands of this camp and district have netted
the Government, over and above all their expenses, including
rations, tents, &c., at least $3,000 per month, independent of
what the women do, and all the property brought through our
lines from the Rebels.’

“_Cairo._ ‘Willing to labor, when they can have proper motives.’

“_Grand Junction._ ‘Have manifested considerable disposition to
escape labor, having had no sufficient motives to work.’

“_Holly Springs and Memphis._ ‘With few exceptions, generally
willing, even without pay. Paid regularly, they are much more
prompt.’

“_Memphis._ ‘Among men better than among women. Hold out to
them the inducements, benefit to themselves and friends,
essential to the industry of any race, and they would at once
be diligent and industrious.’

“_Bolivar._ ‘Generally good; would be improved by the idea of
pay.’”

Here, also, is a glimpse at Newbern, North Carolina, under date of February 26, 1864:--

“Immediately on my return here, on the 12th of October, I
instituted measures for placing the different abandoned
plantations within our lines in this State under proper
management and cultivation. As soon as it became known, that,
as supervising Treasury agent, I had charge of this property, I
was visited by hundreds (and I might correctly say thousands)
of contrabands, along with numerous white persons, desiring to
obtain privileges to work upon the same.”

And here is the testimony of General Banks, in Louisiana:--

“Wherever in the department they have been well treated and
reasonably compensated, they have invariably rendered faithful
service to their employers. From many persons who manage
plantations I have received the information that there is no
difficulty whatever in keeping them at work, if the conditions
to which I have referred are complied with.”

I do not quote further, for it would simply take time. But I cannot forbear adding that the report from the Commissioners on Freedmen, appointed by the Secretary of War, accumulates ample testimony on this head, all showing that the freedmen are anxious to find employment. Your Treasury testifies to their productive power, for it contains at this moment more than a million dollars which have come from the sweat of freedmen.

It is evident, then, that the freedmen are not idlers. They desire work. But, in their helpless condition, they have not the ability to obtain it without assistance. They are alone, friendless, and uninformed. The curse of Slavery is still upon them. Somebody must take them by the hand,--not to support them, but simply to help them obtain the work which will support them. Thus far private societies in different parts of the country, at the East and the West, especially at all the principal centres, have done much toward this charity. But private societies are inadequate to the duties required. The intervention of the National Government is necessary. Without such intervention, many of those poor people, freed by our acts in the exercise of a military necessity, will be left to perish.

The service required is too vast and complex for unorganized individuals. It must proceed from the National Government. This alone can supply the adequate machinery, and extend the proper network of assistance, with the proper unity of operation. The National Government must interfere in the case, precisely as in building the Pacific Railroad. Private charity in our country is active and generous; but it is powerless to cope with the evils arising from a wicked institution; nor can it provide a remedy, where society itself is overthrown.

There are few who will not admit that something must be done by the Government. Cold must be the heart that could turn away from this call. But whatever is done must be through some designated agency; and this brings me to another aspect of the question.

The President in his Proclamation of Emancipation has used the following language: “I recommend to them,”--that is, to the freedmen,--“that in all cases, when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.” Such is the recommendation from that supreme authority which decreed Emancipation. They are to labor, and for reasonable wages. But the President does not undertake to say how this opportunity shall be obtained,--how the laborer shall be brought in connection with the land, how his rights shall be protected, and how his new-found liberty shall be made a blessing. It was enough, perhaps, on the occasion of the Proclamation, that the suggestion should be made. Faithful labor and reasonable wages: let these be secured, and everything else will follow. But how shall they be secured?

Different subjects, as they become important, are committed to special bureaus. I need only refer to Patents, Agriculture, Public Lands, Pensions, and Indian Affairs,--each under the charge of a separate Commissioner. Clearly, the time has come for a Bureau of Freedmen. In speaking of this agency, I mean a bureau which will be confined in operation to the affairs of freedmen, and not travel beyond this increasing class to embrace others, although of African descent. Our present necessity is to help those made free by the present war; and the term “freedmen” describes sufficiently those who have once been slaves. It is this class we propose to help during the _transition period_ from Slavery to Freedom. Call it charity or duty, it is sacred as humanity.

And here a practical question arises with regard to the department in which this bureau should be placed. There are reasons for placing it in the War Department, at least during the war. There are other reasons for placing it in the Department of the Interior, which has charge of Indian Affairs, Pensions, and Patents. But, whatever the reasons on general grounds for placing it in one of these two departments, there are other reasons, of special importance at this moment, which point to the Treasury Department. Indeed, after careful consideration, the Committee were satisfied that it was so clearly associated with other interests already intrusted to this department, that it could not be advantageously administered elsewhere. Although beginning this inquiry with a conviction in favor of the War Department, I could not resist the conclusion of the Committee.

Look, for one moment, at the class of duties already imposed upon the Treasury Department in connection with the very homes of these freedmen.

Congress has, by special Acts, conferred upon the Secretary of the Treasury extraordinary powers with regard to trade in the Rebel States. There is, first, the Act of July 13, 1861, entitled “An Act further to provide for the collection of duties on imports, and for other purposes,” which declares that commercial intercourse with any State or part of a State in rebellion, when licensed by the President, “shall be conducted and carried on _only in pursuance_ of rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury.” And it is further provided, that “the Secretary of the Treasury may appoint such officers, at places where officers of the customs are not now authorized by law, as may be needed to carry into effect such licenses, rules, and regulations.”[346]

There is another Act of Congress, approved May 20, 1862, supplementary to that just named, which confers additional powers upon the Secretary of the Treasury with reference to trade with “any place in the possession or under the control of insurgents against the United States.”[347]

There is also the Act of June 7, 1862, entitled “An Act for the collection of direct taxes in insurrectionary districts within the United States, and for other purposes.” In this Act it is provided, (section nine,) that, where the Board of Commissioners shall be satisfied that the owners of lands “have left the same to join the Rebel forces, or otherwise to engage in and abet this Rebellion, and the same shall have been struck off to the United States at public sale, the said Commissioners shall, in the name of the United States, enter upon and take possession of the same, and may lease the same, together or in parcels, to any person or persons who are citizens of the United States”; and (section ten) the Commissioners “shall from time to time make such temporary rules and regulations and insert such clauses in said leases as shall be just and proper to secure proper and reasonable employment and support, at wages or upon shares of the crop, of such persons and families as may be residing upon the said parcels or lots of land, which said rules and regulations are declared to be subject to the approval of the President.”[348] The execution of this Act is lodged in the Treasury Department.

Then comes the Act of Congress, approved March 12, 1863, entitled “An Act to provide for the collection of abandoned property and for the prevention of frauds in insurrectionary districts within the United States,” under which the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized “to appoint a special agent or agents to receive and collect all abandoned or captured property in any State or Territory or any portion of any State or Territory of the United States, designated as in insurrection against the lawful Government of the United States.” The Act proceeds with details on the subject.[349]

Such are powers conferred by Congress upon the Treasury Department concerning trade and abandoned property in the Rebel States. These were followed by a general order from the War Department, as follows:--

“GENERAL ORDERS, No. 331.

“WAR DEPARTMENT, ADJUTANT-GENERAL’S OFFICE,
“WASHINGTON, October 9, 1863.

“The President orders:--

“1. All houses, tenements, lands, and plantations, except
such as may be required for military purposes, which have
been or may be deserted and abandoned by insurgents within
the lines of the military occupation of the United States
forces in States declared by proclamation of the President to
be in insurrection, will hereafter be under the supervision
and control of the supervising special agents of the Treasury
Department.

“2. All commanders of military departments, districts, and
posts will, upon receipt of this order, surrender and turn over
to the proper supervising special agent such houses, tenements,
lands, and plantations, not required for military uses, as may
be in their possession or under their control; and all officers
of the army of the United States will at all times render to
the agents appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury all such
aid as may be necessary to enable them to obtain possession of
such houses, tenements, lands, and plantations, and to maintain
their authority over the same.

“By order of the Secretary of War.

“E. D. TOWNSEND,
“_Assistant Adjutant-General_.”

By this order, the Treasury Department is substituted for the War Department in jurisdiction over “houses, tenements, lands, and plantations deserted and abandoned by insurgents within the lines of military occupation.” This is broad, but it is positive.

In pursuance of these Acts of Congress, and of this order of the War Department, the Secretary of the Treasury has proceeded to appoint special agents and to establish a code of regulations. I have in my hands a small volume, entitled “Commercial Intercourse with and in States declared in Insurrection, and the Collection of Abandoned and Captured Property,”[350] containing the statutes and also the departmental regulations on the subject. It appears that there is already an organization under the Secretary of the Treasury, and also a system, each of reasonable completeness, to carry out these purposes.

* * * * *

In determining where the Bureau of Freedmen should be placed, it becomes important to consider the interests it is proposed to guard; and this brings me to another aspect of the question.

Looking at the freedmen whose welfare is in question, we find that their labor may be classified under two different heads: first, _military_; and, secondly, _predial_, or relating to farms. There are still other laborers, including especially mechanics; but these are chiefly in the towns. The large mass are included in the two classes I have named. It is, therefore, these two classes that are to be particularly considered.