Chapter XX: Section 7: And be it further enacted, That, after the appointment of (4)

Mr. President, I conclude as I began, with my heart’s gratitude to those brave citizens who again in Arkansas lift the national banner. Let them not be disheartened. Their country is with them in all their perils and all their efforts, longing to receive them again into ancient fellowship and equality; but the time for this welcome has not yet come. Meanwhile let them remember that “they also serve who only stand and wait.”

A debate ensued, in which Mr. Reverdy Johnson replied to Mr.
Sumner. Mr. Wade moved that the joint resolution lie on the
table, which was lost,--Yeas 5, Nays 32. On motion of Mr. Lane
it was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, together
with the credentials of Hon. William M. Fishback and Hon.
Elisha Baxter. At the same time, on motion of Mr. Sumner,
his resolution on the conditions of Reconstruction[363] was
referred to the same Committee.

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

MEANS FOR THE WAR THE TRUE OBJECT OF THE TARIFF.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE TARIFF BILL, JUNE 16, 1864.

June 16th, the Tariff Bill being under consideration, and Mr.
Pomeroy, of Kansas, moving to reduce the duty on railroad iron
from seventy cents to sixty cents per hundred pounds, Mr.
Sumner said:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--I am reluctant to think that we are legislating for a long number of years. Indeed, I regard what we are now doing as temporary or provisional. It is to meet the exigency of the hour; and on this account precisely I am ready to follow the Chairman of the Committee on Finance, in opposing the proposition of the Senator from Kansas.

Here I repeat, Sir, what I have said very often on this floor since the Rebellion began, that there is one rule which I always follow, and, by the blessing of God, will follow to the end. It is this: show me how I can best contribute to the resources of my country, enabling it to reach the end we all desire, and I shall vote for it. At this moment I know no way in which I can contribute more than by adding to the financial strength. Show me how I can most surely secure means to carry on the war and obtain its successful close, and I shall vote for it. If, therefore, by a tax at seventy cents I can promise a larger income than by a tax at sixty cents, I shall vote for seventy cents. To that extent I follow the Senator from Maine.

The amendment was lost,--Yeas 17, Nays 20.

NO TAX ON EDUCATION.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON A PROPOSED DUTY ON PHILOSOPHICAL INSTRUMENTS FOR COLLEGES, JUNE 17, 1864.

June 17th, on the Tariff, the question arose of repealing
the clause exempting from tax “philosophical apparatus and
instruments imported for the use of any society incorporated
for philosophical, literary, or religious purposes, or for the
encouragement of the fine arts, or for the use or by the order
of any college, academy, school, or seminary of learning,” and
imposing a duty of twenty per cent _ad valorem_.

Mr. Sumner said:--

Little money, much mischief: these are two objects that present themselves. That we shall obtain little money is obvious, when it is considered that the philosophical apparatus and instruments imported by colleges and literary institutions, particularly when exposed to this tax, will be of little value. Twenty per cent on their value will not be much for the country. The detriment will appear in the discouragement to their importation. Now, Sir, I would encourage such importations. I would encourage everything by which these associations may be benefited. Not only the associations will gain by such encouragement, but the whole land will reap the advantage. If I could have my way, I would rather lavish upon them bounties. To my mind it is clear that the education of our country would be advanced by stimulating such importations rather than by discouraging them. But there is no question now of stimulating; the proposition is to discourage. I hope it will not be imposed.

The tax was voted in committee,--Yeas 18, Nays 16.

* * * * *

At the next stage of the bill Mr. Sumner renewed his opposition.

I merely wish to make one remark. I would not protract the discussion at this late hour; but I must say that to my mind the proposition is not creditable to our country, and, I think, if adopted, will be mischievous. That is the way it impresses me. I cannot see it otherwise. It is to me a tax on education, and as such odious to an extent which I am hardly willing to characterize. Because we are engaged in war, I find no reason for a tax on education. Tax luxuries, tax necessaries, tax everything else; but do not tax education. As I said this morning, if need be, rather give it a bounty.

The vote in committee was concurred in, and the tax imposed.

ABOLITION OF THE COASTWISE SLAVE-TRADE.

SPEECHES IN THE SENATE, ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE CIVIL APPROPRIATION BILL, JUNE 24 AND 25, 1864.

May 2, 1862, Mr. Sumner gave notice that he should, at an early
day, ask leave to introduce a bill to abolish the coastwise
traffic in slaves under the flag of the United States; and he
added, “In giving this notice, I desire to say that there is a
disgraceful statute which exists unrepealed, and my object is
to remove it from the statute-book.”

March 22, 1864, he reported from the Committee on Slavery
and Freedmen a bill to prohibit commerce in slaves among the
several States, and the holding or transporting of human
beings as property in any vessel within the jurisdiction of
the National Government, which was read and passed to a second
reading. At the same time he said that he did this as a report
in part on “a large number of petitions calling upon Congress
to provide by legislation for the extinction of Slavery.”

The bill reported was as follows.

“A Bill to prohibit commerce in slaves among the several
States, and the holding or transportation of human beings
as property in any vessel within the jurisdiction of the
National Government.

“_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled_,
That there shall be no commerce in slaves among the several
States, by land or by water; and any person attempting or
aiding to transport slaves, as an article of commerce,
from one State to another State, or any person who shall
take part in such commerce, either as seller, buyer, or
agent, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and,
being convicted thereof before any court having competent
jurisdiction, shall suffer imprisonment for not more than
five years, and be fined not exceeding five thousand
dollars, one half of such fine to go to the informer; and
every slave so treated as an article of commerce among
States shall be free.

“SEC. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That no human being
shall be held or transported as property in any vessel on
the high seas, or sailing coastwise, or on any navigable
waters within the jurisdiction of the United States; and
every vessel violating the provisions of this act shall be
forfeited to the United States; and every master of such
vessel consenting to such violation shall be deemed guilty
of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof subject to
the penalties hereinbefore provided, one half of the fine
to go to the informer; and every human being so held or
transported as property shall be free.

“SEC. 3. _And be it further enacted_, That all acts or
parts of acts inconsistent herewith, including especially
so much of an act approved March second, one thousand eight
hundred and seven, as regulates the coastwise slave-trade,
are hereby repealed.”

Failing to obtain an opportunity for this bill in the Senate,
Mr. Sumner determined to move it on an appropriation bill.

June 24th, the Senate having under consideration the bill
making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the
Government, Mr. Sumner moved the following amendment:--

“_And be it further enacted_, That sections eight and nine
of the Act entitled ‘An Act to prohibit the importation of
slaves into any port or place within the jurisdiction of
the United States from and after the first day of January,
in the year of our Lord 1808,’ which sections undertake to
regulate the coastwise slave-trade, are hereby repealed.”

Mr. Sherman, who had succeeded Mr. Fessenden as Chairman of
the Finance Committee, “would not oppose the amendment on an
ordinary bill,” but he trusted “the Senate would keep this bill
free from these disputed, extraneous, political questions.”

Mr. Sumner replied:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--I am sorry that the Senator objects to this amendment. It is true, his objection is of form; but I venture to say that no such objection should be made to such a proposition, especially at this stage of the session.

In moving it now on an appropriation bill, I follow approved precedents. There is no rule of order against it; nor is there any rule of usage. On the contrary, it is in conformity with both order and usage.

The Senator wishes to keep the Appropriation Bill free from extraneous matter. But this is not sufficient reason for excluding my amendment, unless the Senator is ready, for the sake of form, to sacrifice substance. If it be important that my amendment should prevail, and if at this late stage of the session it may be difficult to carry it otherwise, then am I clearly right in moving it, as I now do, and the Senator is wrong in opposing it. An appropriation bill is like a “through train,” and while its special office is to appropriate money, yet it may carry anything required by the public good.

Why, Sir, there is hardly ever an appropriation bill that is not compelled to take passengers in this way. It has been so during the present session repeatedly; and if the Senator will read the “Statutes at Large,” he will find that the usage has prevailed for years. It is no new thing. I do not begin it.

If it were necessary to furnish examples, I might point to my friend, the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. HALE], who gained one of his proudest triumphs in this Chamber, securing to him the sympathy and gratitude especially of sailors, by moving on an appropriation bill the abolition of the lash in the naval and commercial marine of the United States. Had he been driven to wait a special act for this purpose, I fear he would have been waiting to this day. And the example of the Senator has been followed by the Senator from Iowa [Mr. GRIMES], who, on an appropriation bill, moved and carried the abolition of grog in the navy.

But I am not without personal experience under this head. I trust that I shall not take too great a liberty, if I adduce it even in detail. I was chosen to the Senate for the first time immediately after the passage of the infamous Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. If I received from the people of Massachusetts any special charge, it was to use my best endeavors to secure the repeal of that act. I began the work in the first session that I was here. Disappointed in various efforts to bring the question directly before the Senate on a bill or resolution, I ventured at last--on the advice of eminent Senators who differed from me in sentiment, but who appreciated candidly the obligations of my position--to move the repeal on an appropriation bill. A debate ensued, which lasted till late in the evening. It may not be uninteresting to know that on the ayes and noes there were but four votes in the affirmative,--Mr. Chase, Mr. Hale, Mr. Sumner, and Mr. Wade. This was 26th August, 1852. Such was the weakness of our cause at that time.

But please remark, that, throughout the protracted and sometimes acrimonious debate, it was never for a moment objected that the proposition was “not germane to the bill,” or that it was not completely in order. Had any such thing been tenable, had there been the least apology for it, had it not been utterly unreasonable, be assured, Sir, it would have been made the excuse for stifling the discussion. The two political parties had just made their nomination for President. Franklin Pierce was the candidate of the Democrats, and Winfield Scott of the Whigs. Both had united on platforms declaring the Compromise measures, including the Fugitive Slave Act, “a finality” not to be opened or discussed. But they were opened and discussed on that day.

Mr. Hunter, of Virginia, was at the time Chairman of the Committee on Finance. He was in many respects a remarkable person, with a mind enlarged somewhat by study and long experience in public affairs, and with a temper not easily disturbed. Looking back upon his conduct of the business entrusted to him, there can be no question of his ability or fidelity. There was neither weakness nor indifference in that mildness of sway. He understood completely the duties of his position, was a jealous guardian of the appropriation bills, and was, moreover, a most determined thick-and-thin partisan of Slavery in all its pretensions. But I do not recollect that he interposed any objection to the time or place of my motion; and though the Fugitive Slave Bill was part of his political and social creed, I am sure that he allowed the debate to close without any criticism upon my course, or a single impatient word. All this now belongs to history, and I mention it as a precedent for the present hour.

My motion that day was discussed on its merits, and I trust my motion to-day will be discussed in the same way.

I seek to remove from the statute-book odious provisions in support of Slavery. Whoever is in favor of those provisions, whoever is disposed to keep alive the coastwise slave-trade, or to recognize it in our statutes, will naturally vote against my motion. And yet let me say that I am at a loss to understand how, at this moment, at this stage of our history, any Senator can hesitate to unite with me in this work of expurgation and purification. At all events, I trust the Senator from Ohio will not set up an objection of form to prevent the success of this good work. He must not be more severe against Freedom now than was the representative of Slavery who occupied his place when I moved the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Bill.

Mr. Reverdy Johnson agreed with Mr. Sherman in his objection,
and then argued, that, on the repeal of the Act of Congress
regulating this trade, it could be carried on under the
Constitution without restriction.

Mr. Sumner said:--

Of course I disagree radically with the Senator from Maryland [Mr. JOHNSON]. He is always willing to interpret the Constitution for Slavery. I interpret it for Freedom. And yet he is anxious lest the repeal of the two obnoxious sections regulating the coastwise slave-trade should leave it open to unrestrained practice. I do not share his anxiety.

Where will the slaves come from? Not from the Rebel States; for Emancipation is the destined law there. Not from his own State; for Emancipation will soon be the law there. But even should slaves be found for this traffic (which, thank God, cannot be the case), I am unwilling that Congress should continue to regulate the ignoble business. Our statute-book should not be defiled by any such license. Remove this license, and the Constitution, rightly interpreted, will do the rest.

Here arises the difference between the Senator and myself. He proceeds as if those old days still prevailed, when Slavery was installed supreme over the Supreme Court, giving immunity to Slavery everywhere. The times have changed, and the Supreme Court will yet testify to the change. To me it seems clear, that, under the Constitution, no person can be held as a slave on shipboard within the national jurisdiction, and that the national flag cannot cover a slave. The Senator thinks differently, and relies upon the Supreme Court; but I cannot doubt that this regenerated tribunal will yet speak for Freedom as in times past it has spoken for Slavery. And I trust, should my life be spared, to see the Senator from Maryland, who bows always to the decisions of that tribunal, recognize gladly the law of Freedom thus authoritatively pronounced. Perhaps he will wonder that he was ever able to interpret the Constitution for Slavery. If he should not, others must.

But my special purpose is to remove odious provisions, and I have contented myself with words of repeal, in the hope of presenting the proposition in such a form as to unite the largest number of votes. My own disposition has been to go further, and to add words of positive prohibition. But, at the present moment, I am willing to waive this addition, and content myself with the simple repeal, that our statute-book may no longer be degraded, trusting that the Constitution, rightly interpreted, will suffice. And yet the positive prohibition, which the Senator seems to invite or to challenge, would not only purify the statute-book, but effectually guard against the future, so that both Constitution and Law would be arrayed against an infamous traffic. Clearly this ought to be done; and if I have not presented it, do not set it down to indifference or inattention, but simply to my desire that the proposition, moved on an appropriation bill, should be limited to the necessity of the occasion. To do less than I propose would be wrong. I should be glad to do more.

Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, remarked:--

“I am surprised that any Senator should oppose the
proposition of the Senator from Massachusetts, for we all
know that eventually it will be adopted. The objection as
to its materiality, or proper connection with this measure,
is but an objection of time. No gentleman can question
that the Senator from Massachusetts will eventually carry
his proposition.… Why, then, contest the matter longer?…
It may as well come now as at any time.… Sir, I regret
to see this. Every law put upon the statute-book by our
fathers, with a view of carrying out the provisions of the
Constitution, or in pursuance of the spirit of the union
between the States, I regret to see wiped out; but we have
witnessed it, and I think the effort to delay is useless.”

Mr. Collamer, of Vermont, argued for the repeal, insisting
that “all laws that undertake to deal with slaves, who are
persons under the Constitution and our laws, as articles of
merchandise, are unconstitutional.”

Meanwhile Mr. Sumner added to his amendment the words, “and
the coastwise slave-trade is prohibited forever”; so that the
amendment repealed the two obnoxious sections regulating the
trade, and also prohibited it.

June 25th, the debate continuing, Mr. Sumner spoke again.

I wish to make one remark on the question of power. I say nothing on the point whether Congress under the Constitution may regulate the trade in slaves between the States on the land. I waive that question. The proposition before the Senate simply undertakes to prohibit the coastwise slave-trade. Now, Sir, I hold in my hand Brightly’s Digest. Turning to that, you will find one head entitled “Coasting Trade,” containing no less than forty-eight different sections, each in the nature of a regulation by Congress on that subject. I turn next to another head, entitled “Passengers.” There I find seventeen sections, each in the nature of a regulation on that subject; and in point of fact it is well known that Congress has, by most minute regulations, determined the conditions on which passengers shall be carried in ships. It is known that those regulations are applied especially on board the California steamers, and the steamers between this country and Europe. In the one case the steamers are foreign; in the other they are domestic,--or the trade, if I may so say, is domestic. In view of this minute and ample legislation on the subject of passengers and of the coasting-trade, I submit there can be no question that Congress can go further, and, by a final regulation, declare that in our coasting-trade there shall be no such thing as the slave-trade.

The amendment was lost,--Yeas 13, Nays 20.

At the next stage of the bill Mr. Sumner moved the same
amendment, with the words prohibiting the coastwise
slave-trade. On moving it, he remarked:--

I have but one observation to make. It seems to me this Congress will do wrong to itself, wrong to the country, wrong to history, wrong to the national cause, if it separates without clearing the statute-book of every support of Slavery. Now this is the last support in the statute-book, and I entreat the Senate to remove it.

Mr. Saulsbury moved the indefinite postponement of the bill,
which was lost without a division. Meanwhile Mr. Sumner had
succeeded in attaching to the Appropriation Bill the clause
opening United States courts to colored witnesses. Alluding to
this incident, Mr. Doolittle said that he did not like to vote
for such measures on appropriation bills, but that he was in
favor of the abolition of the coastwise slave-trade, and should
vote in the affirmative.

The amendment was carried,--Yeas 23, Nays 14,--and the bill
was approved by the President July 2, 1864.

OPENING OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS TO COLORED WITNESSES.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE CIVIL APPROPRIATION BILL, JUNE 25, 1864.

Failing to obtain a hearing for the bill reported from the
Committee on Slavery and Freedmen,[364] Mr. Sumner resorted
again to the Appropriation Bill.

June 25th, the Senate having under consideration the Civil
Appropriation Bill, Mr. Sumner, after stating that the third
section appropriated one hundred thousand dollars to aid the
administration of justice, especially in bringing to conviction
counterfeiters of Treasury notes, bonds, or other United States
securities, as well as coin, remarked, that, to accomplish this
result, something more than money was needed,--that there must
be an amendment of the Law of Evidence; and he sent to the
Chair the following proviso, to be added to the third section:--

“_Provided_, That in the courts of the United States there
shall be no exclusion of any witness on account of color.”

Mr. Sumner then remarked:--

This, Mr. President, is an amendment surely apposite. The objection of form, urged to my other proposition, is without any shadow of support here. It is proposed in the bill to appropriate one hundred thousand dollars to “bring to trial and punishment” counterfeiters. The object is important, especially at this moment, when we are putting in circulation national securities on so large a scale. But suppose the counterfeiter, in a State where the evidence of colored persons is excluded, chooses to employ such persons in his crime. How can you bring him to punishment? All this large appropriation will not help then. It will be of no avail. The counterfeiter, surrounded by colored accomplices, may mock your laws. But admit the testimony of these accomplices, and then will justice be done. I refer to this class of cases because your bill provides especially for them, and thus attests the importance of precautionary effort.

But the hardship and absurdity of this rule, apparent in the case of a counterfeiter surrounded by colored accomplices, arise in every other case of crime. How justice can be administered, where such a rule prevails, I am at a loss to understand. Now that Slavery is disappearing, this rule ought to disappear also.

The subject has already been discussed at length, during the present session, in an elaborate report which I have had the honor of making from the Select Committee on Slavery and Freedmen; so that I need not occupy your time. Besides, the case is too plain for argument. But I have in my hands letters from gentlemen in Virginia, showing the practical necessity of the testimony of colored persons there. Here is one:--

“HALL OF THE CONVENTION,
ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA, March 17, 1864.

“I address thee as friend, although having no personal
acquaintance, but have long known thee by reputation as a
friend to the human race. Having been connected with the
reorganized government from its beginning, I naturally feel a
strong interest in its welfare.

“We have in Convention abolished slavery in the organic law of
the State, and it would at first sight seem as if our fondest
hopes were realized. But another difficulty now stares us
in the face, which, in the present state of public opinion,
we cannot conquer: I allude to the subject of allowing the
freedmen to give testimony in our courts. This will not be
allowed, where the interests of whites are involved. The result
that will follow any one can foresee,--that their persons and
property will be at the mercy of every vagabond who may happen
to have a black heart instead of a black skin.

“While they were slaves, their masters were a protection to
them against others. Although there was not much law looking
that way, their owners being of the all-powerful class in the
communities in which they lived, their influence answered the
end very well. My object in writing was to make thee acquainted
with the probable future position of these people, thinking it
might be possible to ameliorate their condition by some Federal
legislation. While I speak of Virginia, I have no doubt but
that the same will be true of the whole South, and will be a
gigantic evil that may lead to the most disastrous results.
The negro, after this war, will not be the same man as before:
breathing the air of freedom, trained to arms, understanding
the power of combination, and familiar with blood, it will be
tampering with a volcano to deny him protection of person and
property.”

I do not give the name of this writer, because he is unwilling that it should be known. But you will observe, from the date of the letter, that he was a member of the Virginia Convention. His testimony will speak for itself. The other letter, as you will see, is from the District Judge of Virginia.

“UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,
ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA, March 22, 1864.

“DEAR SIR,--Some time since I saw by the papers that you were
urging the admission of our freedmen as witnesses in all United
States courts.

“In several confiscation cases now pending in this court such
testimony will be of the greatest importance. Indeed, I am
told by the United States Assistant Attorney in this court,
that, from his knowledge in the preparation of these cases, the
prosecution will probably fail, and the Government be subjected
to costs, unless such testimony is allowed in several cases now
on our docket. You will therefore see the necessity of a speedy
change of the law, corresponding to the change which has taken
place in the condition of the freedmen.

“Your obedient servant,

“JOHN C. UNDERWOOD, _District Judge_.

“Hon. CHARLES SUMNER, _United States Senate_.”

This is practical wisdom. Let me add to it proof from another quarter. Sir Samuel Romilly, whose great fame as a lawyer was enhanced by humane labors in Parliament, has furnished evidence on this very point.

“The laws of the Colonies are said to be humane; but by those
laws a child of five or six years old may receive, for a slight
offence or for no offence, at the caprice of the master or
overseer, no less than thirty-nine lashes with what is termed
a cart-whip. To this dreadful extent the law _authorizes_ the
infliction of punishment by individuals. But even in cases
where the law conveys no authority, where wanton cruelty is
inflicted in defiance of the law, how easy it must be to
escape detection, when the testimony of a negro, or a thousand
negroes, would not avail against a white man! And with what
force must this argument strike, when we reflect on the
proportion which the white bear to the black inhabitants of
the island! What security could we expect in our passage even
through the streets of London, if ninety-nine people out of
a hundred, or even nine out of ten, were incompetent to give
evidence in a court of justice?”[365]

Mr. President, in bringing forward this measure, I waive for the present all questions of right, and, if you please, all sentiments of humanity. I ask attention plainly and directly to the practical failure of justice which must arise without its adoption. This may be seen under two different heads: first, with regard to colored persons; and, secondly, with regard to white persons.

If colored persons cannot testify against white persons, what protection can they have against outrage? The white person may perpetrate any brutality upon colored persons with impunity. There is nothing in the dreary catalogue of crime, from a simple assault to murder itself, which may not be committed with impunity by a white person, if no other white person be present. This bare statement is enough. Surely at this moment there should be no delay in preventing such failure of justice.

But the same failure may occur in the case of white persons. Let a white person be assaulted, or murdered, if you please, by another white person, but only in the presence of colored persons, and justice cannot be administered. The criminal will continue at large unpunished.

Therefore, for the administration of justice, that it may not fail to the colored person, and then again that it may not fail to the white person, there should be no exclusion of any citizens on account of color.

Let the witness always be admitted to testify, leaving the jury to be judges of his credibility. If his story seems improbable, or there be anything in his manner, conduct, or past life to excite distrust, the jury will be able to measure the just weight of his testimony.

It is hard to be obliged to argue this question. I do not argue it. I will not argue it. I simply ask for your votes. Surely, Congress will not adjourn without redressing this grievance. The king, in Magna Charta, promised that he would deny justice to no one. Congress has succeeded to this promise and obligation.

Mr. Sherman said he “trusted, that, after the experience of
last night, when the thermometer here rose to ninety-three
degrees, and we were all exhausted by a debate on irrelevant
matter, the Senator from Massachusetts would not introduce upon
this appropriation bill a topic of this kind.” He thought we
had already voted on this amendment on two other bills.

Mr. Sumner, after remarking that he had not been able to bring
the amendment applicable to the United States courts to a vote
by itself, said:--

I can state to the Senator the different occasions on which this principle prevailed. It prevailed on the statute emancipating slaves in this District; but here it was applicable only to cases arising in questions of freedom under the statute. It was next broadened to all proceedings in the courts of the District. But it has not been applied beyond that. I have sought to apply it generally; I have moved it more than once on other bills, and have failed; and the measure is now pending as a bill reported by the Select Committee on Slavery and Freedmen, and it is also pending as a section of another bill reported by the Senator from Vermont [Mr. COLLAMER] from the Committee on Post-Offices and Post-Roads. Therefore it has the approval, as a general proposition, of two separate committees of this body, while, as a proposition applicable to the District of Columbia, it has had the sanction of the Senate twice over; and now I plead with the Senate not to arrest it here.

Mr. Sherman replied: “I agree with the Senator in the
general principle entirely; but I hope he will not press the
proposition as an amendment to this bill, for I know it will
create discussion.”

Mr. Sumner said:--

I believe it is always time for an act of justice, and I think this Congress ought not to separate without this act of justice. It ought to do it for the sake of the administration of justice. I have not put this case, you will bear witness, on any grounds of sympathy or sentiment or humanity; I plead for it now as essential to the administration of justice; and for one, as a Senator, I cannot willingly abandon the opportunity afforded me by my seat here of making this motion,--of making this effort to open the courts of my country to evidence without which justice must often fail.

Mr. Carlile, of Virginia, appealed to Mr. Sumner “to withdraw
the amendment, and allow this subject to rest, at least until
the next session of Congress.” This he declined to do.

Mr. Buckalew, of Pennsylvania, thereupon moved to amend the
amendment by adding, “nor in civil actions, because he is a
party to or interested in the issue tried.” Then came the
following passage.

MR. SUMNER. I am in favor of that proposition, taken by itself; but I do not wish it put upon this.

MR. GRATZ BROWN (to Mr. SUMNER). That is just what other people
say about yours.

MR. SUMNER. I understand that; but I wish to secure this justice.

MR. BUCKALEW. I wish to secure the additional justice provided
by my amendment.

MR. SUMNER. I will vote for the Senator’s proposition by itself. Let him move it when mine is carried.

MR. SAULSBURY. I do not wish to say anything about the “nigger”
aspect of this case. It is here every day, and I suppose it
will be here every day for years to come, till the Democratic
party comes into power and wipes out all legislation on the
statute-book of this character, which I trust in God they will
soon do.

* * * * *

The amendment of Mr. Buckalew was agreed to, and Mr. Sumner’s
amendment, as amended, was carried,--Yeas 22, Nays 16,--and the
bill was approved by the President July 2, 1864.

RECONSTRUCTION, AND ADOPTION OF PROCLAMATION OF EMANCIPATION BY ACT OF CONGRESS.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, JULY 1, 1864.

The effort at Reconstruction, which failed in the previous
Congress, was superseded at the present session by another,
having, like the former, as its distinctive feature, the
assertion of the power of Congress over the Rebel States.

February 15th, Henry Winter Davis, of Maryland, reported a bill
to guaranty to certain States, whose governments have been
usurped or overthrown, a republican form of government. This
bill provided for these States Provisional Governors, appointed
by the President by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate; also, the assembling of Constitutional Conventions,
chosen by “loyal white male citizens,” being a majority of the
persons enrolled in the State, which shall declare “involuntary
servitude forever prohibited, and the freedom of all persons
guarantied in said State”; also, all slaves were declared
emancipated, and persons free by this or any other act or by
“any proclamation of the President” were protected in their
freedom. After earnest debate, this bill passed the House May
4th,--Yeas 74, Nays 66.

In the Senate the bill was referred to the Committee on
Territories, of which Mr. Wade was Chairman. May 27th, he
reported it to the Senate with amendments. July 1st, it was on
his motion considered, and, in order to save the bill at that
late day of the session, he abandoned the amendments reported,
the most important of which was to strike out the word “white,”
so as to read “all male citizens of the United States.” This
amendment was rejected, by Yeas 5, Nays 24,--the minority being
Messrs. Gratz Brown, Lane, of Kansas, Morgan, of New York,
Pomeroy, of Kansas, and Sumner. Mr. Gratz Brown then moved to
substitute for the whole bill a single section, providing that
the inhabitants of a State declared to be in insurrection shall
not cast any vote for electors of President or Vice-President,
or elect Senators or Representatives in Congress, until the
suppression of the insurrection, “nor until such return to
obedience shall be declared by proclamation of the President,
issued by virtue of an Act of Congress, hereafter to be
passed, authorizing the same.” This was in conformity with
propositions introduced by Mr. Sumner.[366] The House bill was
unsatisfactory, inasmuch as it founded the new governments on
“white male citizens”: but, besides asserting the power of
Congress over the Rebel States, it decreed the abolition of
Slavery in these States; therefore Mr. Sumner favored it. But
the substitute of Mr. Brown prevailed,--Yeas 17, Nays 16.

Mr. Sumner then brought forward his bill, originally reported
from the Committee on Slavery and Freedmen, and moved it as an
additional section:--

“_And be it further enacted_, That the Proclamation of
Emancipation, issued by the President of the United States
on the 1st day of January, 1863, so far as the same
declares that the slaves in certain designated States and
portions of States thenceforward should be free, is hereby
adopted and enacted as a statute of the United States, and
as a rule and article for the government of the military
and naval forces thereof.”

Mr. Hale, of New Hampshire, was in favor of this, but thought
it “incongruous and out of place here.” Mr. Sumner followed.

The Senator from New Hampshire is entirely mistaken, when he says that the section moved by me is incongruous. The Senator whispers to me that he did not say so.[367] I beg his pardon; he began by saying it was incongruous. It is entirely germane,--nothing could be more germane. The section already adopted concerns the Rebel States: that I offer concerns the Rebel States. The Senator cannot vote against what I now offer; it is neither more nor less than this: to recognize as a statute the Proclamation of Emancipation, putting it under the guaranty and safeguard of an Act of Congress. That is all. It is as simple as day; it is as plain as truth. It is impossible for any person recognizing the Proclamation of Emancipation, or disposed to stand by it, to vote against the amendment I now offer. I wish Emancipation in the Rebel States supported by Congress. I am unwilling to see it left afloat on a presidential proclamation. We are assured that the Proclamation will not be changed; but who knows what may be the vicissitudes of elections? I do not look far enough into the future to see what proclamation may be issued hereafter. I would make the present sure, and fix it forevermore and immortal in an Act of Congress.

Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, denounced the amendment as “an
attempt by Federal legislation to legislate for the States
themselves, to regulate their domestic institutions,--to
control property, in other words.” Mr. Gratz Brown said that
the amendment, “as an independent proposition, met his hearty
concurrence”; that he concurred heartily and fully with Mr.
Sumner “as to the propriety of putting in the shape of a
statute that proclamation of the President”; but that it ought
not to be on the present bill, as it could not pass the House.

MR. SUMNER. I adopt the language of my friend from Missouri. He regards his proposition as necessary. I regard his proposition, or something equivalent, as necessary. But not less necessary do I regard that which I have the honor to offer. His is to meet a question in Reconstruction. Mine is to meet a similar question.

MR. BROWN. Mine is not a proposition for Reconstruction, at
all. It is simply providing that they shall not exercise the
elective franchise until Congress authorizes it by Act.

MR. SUMNER. I understand it. The obvious effect is to postpone all activities tending to Reconstruction, and to bring them all under the rule of Congress. That is the object of the Senator. And my present object is to bring Emancipation under the rule of Congress, so that it shall no longer depend on the Proclamation of the President. I am unwilling that Emancipation shall depend upon the will of any one man, be he Senator or President. I would place it under the highest sanction which our country knows. If I could, I would place it at once under the shield of the Constitution; but that failing, let me place it under that other safeguard, an Act of Congress. I am sure the Senator cannot differ with me. But the Senator, whose experience here certainly does not compare with that of others, assures us that this measure cannot pass the other House. Sir, by what intuition has he arrived at that knowledge? I have no means of knowing that. On the contrary, if left to draw my conclusion from what has already occurred, I say, unhesitatingly, it can pass the other House. The Senator forgets, that, when it reaches the other House, it will not be as a bill, to go through its three different stages,--but as an amendment to a House bill, subject only to one stage of proceeding, with one vote. I tell the Senator it can pass the other House. It only requires that the Senate should send it there. Let us will it, and it can be done; and I do entreat the Senator from Missouri, who I know is pledged so strenuously to the cause of Emancipation, not to fail it at this hour.

The amendment of Mr. Sumner was lost,--Yeas 11, Nays 21.

The bill, as amended by the substitute of Mr. Brown,
then passed the Senate,--Yeas 26, Nays 3. The House of
Representatives disagreed to the substitute, and asked a
conference. The Senate, on motion of Mr. Wade, receded from the
substitute,--Yeas 18, Nays 14,--and so the bill passed both
Houses; but it failed to receive the approval of the President
of the United States.

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF LITERATURE AND ART; ALSO OF MORAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCES.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON A BILL CREATING THESE TWO ACADEMIES, JULY 2, 1864.

June 30th, Mr. Sumner asked, and by unanimous consent obtained,
leave to bring in the following bill, which was read the first
and second times by unanimous consent, and ordered to be
printed.

A Bill to incorporate the National Academy of Literature
and Art, and also to incorporate the National Academy of
Moral and Political Sciences.

_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled_,
That S. Austin Allibone, Pennsylvania, William C. Bryant,
New York, Frederick E. Church, New York, George W. Curtis,
New York, Richard H. Dana, Massachusetts, John S. Dwight,
Massachusetts, Ralph W. Emerson, Massachusetts, Fitz-Greene
Halleck, Connecticut, Oliver W. Holmes, Massachusetts,
Henry W. Longfellow, Massachusetts, James R. Lowell,
Massachusetts, George P. Marsh, Vermont, Hiram Powers,
Ohio, William W. Story, Massachusetts, George Ticknor,
Massachusetts, Henry T. Tuckerman, New York, Gulian C.
Verplanck, New York, William D. Whitney, Connecticut,
John G. Whittier, Massachusetts, Joseph E. Worcester,
Massachusetts, their associates and successors, duly
chosen, are hereby declared to be a body corporate for the
study and cultivation of the ancient and modern languages,
letters, and the fine arts, by the name of the National
Academy of Literature and Art.

SEC. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That George Bancroft,
New York, Henry Ward Beecher, New York, Horace Binney,
Pennsylvania, Robert J. Breckinridge, Kentucky, Edward
Everett, Massachusetts, Thomas Ewing, Ohio, Henry W.
Halleck, Army of the United States, California, Samuel
G. Howe, Massachusetts, Charles King, New York, Francis
Lieber, New York, J. Lothrop Motley, Massachusetts, John G.
Palfrey, Massachusetts, Wendell Phillips, Massachusetts,
Alonzo Potter, Pennsylvania, Josiah Quincy, Massachusetts,
Henry B. Smith, New York, Jared Sparks, Massachusetts,
Robert J. Walker, District of Columbia, Francis Wayland,
Rhode Island, Theodore D. Woolsey, Connecticut, their
associates and successors, duly chosen, are hereby declared
to be a body corporate for the study and cultivation
of history, and the sciences which concern morals and
government, by the name of the National Academy of Moral
and Political Sciences.

SEC. 3. _And be it further enacted_, That each of these
National Academies shall consist of not more than fifty
ordinary members, of whom not more than ten shall be
elected in any one year; that nominations shall be made and
elections held at the regular annual meeting only, and that
no nomination for any kind of membership shall be acted
upon until it shall have been before the Academy for one
year, and shall have been considered by a committee.

SEC. 4. _And be it further enacted_, That each of these
National Academies shall have power to make its own
organization, including its constitution, by-laws, and
rules and regulations; to fill all vacancies created by
death, resignation, or otherwise; to provide for the
election of foreign and domestic members, what number shall
be a quorum, the division into classes, and all other
matters needful or usual in such institutions, and to
report the same to Congress.

SEC. 5. _And be it further enacted_, That each of these
National Academies shall hold an annual meeting at such
place in the United States as may be designated, and,
whenever thereto requested by any department of the
Government, shall investigate, examine, and report upon
any subject within their respective provinces: it being
understood that the actual expense thereof, if any, shall
be paid from appropriations which may be made for the
purpose, but the Academies shall receive no compensation
whatever for any services to the Government of the United
States.

July 2d, the Senate, on Mr. Sumner’s motion, proceeded to
consider this bill. Mr. McDougall, of California, said: “This
attempt at aggregating all power in the General Government
tends to destroy the positive exercise of the power of local
institutions.… The Senator from Massachusetts … undertakes to
present this and other conterminous things as a policy, so as
to wipe out the lines of the States and make one grand empire.
That may be his policy. I have seen it indicated from various
quarters. It is revolutionary.… I have not the right to promote
such a corporation; he has not the right to promote such a
corporation.”

Mr. Sumner replied briefly.

The answer is very simple. I have in my hand the Statutes at Large, containing what was done by the last Congress. Here is “An Act to incorporate the National Academy of Sciences,” approved March 3, 1863, setting forth the names of eminent, not to say illustrious, men of science in our country, and constituting them an Academy of Sciences. It will be remembered that this Academy, during the present winter, met in this Capitol; that one or more of our committee-rooms were set apart for them; and I know that many Senators and gentlemen of the other House took great interest in their meetings. This Academy is devoted to the cultivation of the sciences properly so called.

MR. MCDOUGALL. Will the Senator permit me to interrupt him?

MR. SUMNER. Certainly.

MR. MCDOUGALL. There may be some questions about which the
Senator and myself may not understand each other exactly. Of
course we have the right to incorporate an institution in the
District of Columbia, that is local to the District, by virtue
of our general powers of legislation over it; but that is not
within the sphere of this legislation, as I understand.

MR. SUMNER. The Act of Congress to which I refer is general in terms; it is not limited to the District; it is a national act to create a National Academy: and the bill before the Senate simply proposes to apply the same principle to gentlemen engaged in the cultivation of literature and art, also to gentlemen engaged in the cultivation of history and those sciences which are connected with morals and government. In the designation of the two academies I have respected the example of France, which is the country that has most excelled in academies of this kind. I believe the Act of Congress is sufficient as a precedent. I do not think there can be any just constitutional objection; and I am sure that the association, if once organized, would give opportunities of activity and of influence important to the literature of the country. I hope there will be no question about it.

Mr. Doolittle, of Wisconsin, wished to call up a bill from the
House of Representatives, relating to certain half-breeds of
the Winnebago Indians. “There is no chance of the pending bill
passing the House of Representatives. What, then, is the use
of taking up time with it here?” Mr. Morrill, of Maine, wished
to introduce a bill to provide for the Washington aqueduct.
Mr. Hale, of New Hampshire, thought that “at this stage of the
session it was a little too late to be engaged in making a
close corporation of mutual admirers,” and he moved to take up
a bill providing for the education of naval constructors and
steam-engineers. The last motion prevailed.

NO FINAL ADJOURNMENT OF CONGRESS WITHOUT INCREASED TAXATION.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE RESOLUTION OF FINAL ADJOURNMENT, JULY 2, 1864.

July 2d, late in the evening, this day being Saturday, it was
proposed that the session of Congress should finally close on
Monday, July 4th, at noon. Mr. Sumner earnestly opposed this
adjournment.

MR. PRESIDENT,--In determining when to adjourn we may be guided by the experience of the past. If earlier Congresses, having less to do, infinitely less, than the present Congress, have found it necessary to continue their sessions through the summer, it is not improper to ask if we should be less industrious and less persevering.

I have in my hand a memorandum of the adjournments of Congress at the long session during the last twenty years. It is most suggestive, at least, even if not commanding to us.

The first session of the Twenty-Ninth Congress closed August 10, 1846. The war with Mexico had just begun. The first session of the Thirtieth Congress ended August 14, 1848. The main discussion of this year was on the Wilmot Proviso. The first session of the Thirty-First Congress lasted till September 30, 1850. This was the session of Compromise. The Fugitive Slave Act bears date September 18th of this year. The first session of the Thirty-Second Congress did not close till August 31, 1852. During this period the Compromise measures were much discussed, also the Presidential question, and the platforms of the two great parties. It was as late as August 26th that I had the honor of moving the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act, being one of the Slavery compromises adopted by the previous Congress. The first session of the Thirty-Third Congress adjourned August 7, 1854. This was early for those times. The first session of the Thirty-Fourth Congress adjourned August 30, 1856, Kansas being the constant order of the day. Down to this period there was no adjournment before August, and one Congress sat as late as September 30th. But a change took place.

In 1856 the old _per diem_ of eight dollars, as compensation of Senators and Representatives, was transmuted into the present system of compensation by an annual salary of three thousand dollars, be the session long or short. See now what ensued. The first session of the Thirty-Fifth Congress, immediately after the change of pay, closed June 14, 1858; and yet the questions of Kansas and the Lecompton Constitution were uppermost. The first session of the Thirty-Sixth Congress closed June 28, 1860, on the eve of the Presidential election, having been much occupied by the crisis of that historic conflict. Then came the long session of the Thirty-Seventh Congress, which did not adjourn till July 17, 1862, being a remarkable session, which has stored the statute-book with monuments of its industry and patriotism. Such is the record of the past; and now it is proposed to adjourn on the 4th of July.

There are two suggestions with regard to this record, which you will pardon me for making. First, so long as Congress was paid at the rate of eight dollars a day, and salary depended upon the duration of the session, Congress sat late in the season. It is humiliating to think that a consideration apparently so trivial could have had such influence; but such are the facts. The other suggestion is of a different character. It appears, that, while the pretensions of Slavery were to be upheld, Congress was willing to give up the whole summer, even into autumn, to the odious theme. For the sake of an execrable Fugitive Slave Act, and other kindred measures, it bore all these heats, now so insupportable.

Sir, long ago I began the cry that we of the Free States must be as earnest and positive for Freedom as our opponents had always been for Slavery. Why not imitate their example? Business did not draw them away, heat did not drive them away, when Slavery was in question. But Freedom in every form is now in question. There is your army: it must be sustained. There are your finances: must they not be sustained also? There, too, are the great ideas of Freedom involved in this war. Much as has been done to uphold these, more remains to be done.