Chapter IX: Introduction: To the Collection,41 April 1, 1872 (7)

To arrest this contagion, to help those exposed to its ravages, we perform a simple duty, as when we direct water upon the bursting blaze. Pestilence is a conflagration, and human life is the sacrifice. In this illustration I bring home to Boston merchants the urgency of the present call. Too well you know the terrible scene, when your magnificent and well-filled warehouses, borrowed in style and form from Venetian palaces, were seized and devoured by the flames. But other flames, not less vindictive, are now seizing and devouring fellow-men, our fellow-countrymen, in fair and beautiful places where all smiles but the benefactor Health. Let us do what we can to help the benefactor resume his sway.

At the close of Mr. Sumner’s remarks, measures were taken for the
immediate receiving of subscriptions.

THE CASE OF THE VIRGINIUS.

LETTER TO THE CUBAN MASS MEETING IN NEW YORK, NOVEMBER 15, 1873.

The Virginius, a steamer sailing from New York under American
colors, was seized on her way from Jamaica to Cuba by a Spanish
cruiser, the Tornado, on the ground that she was carrying men
and munitions of war to the Cuban insurgents, and a large number
of those on board were summarily executed by order of the
Spanish authorities in that island. The intelligence caused much
excitement, especially in the City of New York, which was the
centre of Cuban interests in this country. An indignation meeting
was held in that City, which was countenanced by persons of high
character and position, and addressed by Hon. William M. Evarts and
others in speeches of great intensity. Mr. Sumner, taking a view of
the case which the sober second thought of the people approved, but
which was not in accord with the passions of the hour, answered an
invitation to attend the meeting by the following letter:--

BOSTON, November 15, 1873.

GENTLEMEN,--It is not in my power to be with you at your meeting to
ask for justice in Cuba.

Allow me to add, that, longing for immediate Emancipation in this
neighboring island, where Slavery still shows its infamous front, and
always insisting that delay is contrary to justice, I do not think
it practicable at this moment, on existing evidence, to determine
all our duties in the recent case where civilization has received a
shock.

It is very easy to see that no indignation at dreadful
butchery--inconsistent with the spirit of the age, but unhappily
aroused by an illicit filibustering expedition from our own shores,
kindred to that of the Alabama, for which England has been justly
condemned in damages--can make us forget that we are dealing with the
Spanish nation, struggling under terrible difficulties to become a
sister Republic, and therefore deserving from us present forbearance
and candor. Nor can we forget the noble President, whose eloquent
voice, pleading for humanity and invoking our example, has so often
charmed the world. The Spanish Republic and Emilio Castelar do not
deserve the menace of war from us.

If watchwords are needed now, let them be: Immediate Emancipation
and Justice in Cuba!--Success to the Spanish Republic!--Honor and
Gratitude to Emilio Castelar! and Peace between our two Nations!
Bearing these in mind, there will be no occasion for the belligerent
preparations of the last few days, adding to our present burdensome
expenditures several millions of dollars, and creating a war fever to
interfere with the general health of the political body.

I am, Gentlemen,

Your faithful servant,

CHARLES SUMNER.

TO THE COMMITTEE.

THE SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL-RIGHTS BILL AGAIN: IMMEDIATE ACTION URGED.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, DECEMBER 2, 1873.

MR. PRESIDENT,--If the Senate has no business before it, I think it cannot do better than to proceed to the consideration of Senate bill No. 1, the Bill Supplementary to the Civil-Rights Act.[230] It is a well-known bill, and I do not see how it will require any debate. I think its reading will be enough. Its terms are expressive; the bill proves itself. I move that the Senate proceed to its consideration.

Mr. Ferry, of Connecticut, objecting, that on the introduction of
this bill, the day before, Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, who was not
now in his seat, had expressed an earnest desire that it should be
referred to a committee, a feeling in which he himself sympathized,
“especially because the constitutional question which was prominent
in the former debate on it had been submitted to the consideration
of the Supreme Court of the United States, and its decision
promulgated since the Senate last met,”--

* * * * *

Mr. Sumner replied:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--This bill has been before a committee. What the committee did in the way of consideration I know not; I had not the honor of being a member of it. But afterward, as all know, this bill was completely, most thoroughly, considered and canvassed in this Chamber. Never in the history of our legislation was any bill more considered; never has any bill been more minutely matured. Why, then, refer it to a committee? I do not say that Senators propose delay, but it is obvious that such a reference will cause delay.

Now, Sir, I am against delay in the enactment of this measure. It should pass promptly. It is a great act of justice, to which, as I understand, the political parties of the country, in solemn convention, are pledged. Why, then, wait? Why charge a committee with this burden? Why continue on the country the burden of the injustice which this bill proposes to relieve?

We are reminded of a recent decision of the Supreme Court. I have yet to learn how that decision has any practical bearing on the present bill. I do not believe that it touches it. Why, then, interpose this delay? Why not go forward promptly, swiftly, according to the merits of this measure, and give it, like a benediction, to the land? Here are our colored fellow-citizens, many millions strong, all of whom have votes, and all unite in asking it. Your table has literally groaned under petitions presented from month to month, from year to year; and unless the bill is speedily passed, I predict that your table will groan again with similar petitions, and justly,--for our colored fellow-citizens ought to exercise that great right of petition in favor of this measure until it is finally adopted.

I am sorry that the suggestion has been made. I had hoped that there would be nothing but welcome and consideration for a measure so truly beneficent, and which is absolutely needed to crown and complete the great work of Reconstruction.

Mr. Ferry reiterating his objections, with the remark that this
bill had “in its principle been considered by the Supreme Court
of the United States,” and its constitutionality “substantially
decided against,” and to Mr. Sumner’s inquiry, “When, and on what
occasion?” responding,--

“In the New Orleans Slaughter-house cases; and I have read in
the newspapers of the country during the recent vacation what
purported to be the opinion of the Supreme Court; and if the
paper which I read was the opinion of the Supreme Court, that
court, by a majority, holds in principle that the bill which
the Senator has presented is a violation of the Constitution of
the United States,”--

Mr. Sumner rejoined:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--I would not fail in any courtesy to any Senator, especially in any courtesy to the Senator from Vermont, for whom I have all kindness and honor, but I think Senators will agree that nothing passed yesterday between us by which I am in any way constrained, so that I may not ask the Senate to proceed at once with this bill. If I could see the question as my friend from Connecticut sees it, he may be assured that I should not press the bill. I do not see it so; but I do see that this bill is now on our table numbered _One_: it is the first bill of the Calendar. I see also that at this time the Senate has no business before it; and should I not fail in duty, if I did not ask the Senate to proceed during this unoccupied time with a bill which I regard as so important, and which is actually the first in order, being foremost among all bills?

But my friend from Connecticut reminds me of a recent decision of the Supreme Court. For that Court I have great respect. Personal and professional familiarity with the Court, and study of its judgments running now for much more than a generation, incline me always to deference when its decisions are mentioned; but if I understood my friend, he relies upon a newspaper report. Sir, I have read the judgment of that Court, communicated to me by one of its members in an official copy; and I have no hesitation in saying that the Senator is entirely mistaken, if he supposes that by a hair’s breadth it interferes with the constitutionality of the bill which I now move.

Sir, there is no such lion in our path. It exists only in the imagination of my friend,--or in the desire, which he has so often manifested, to interfere with the adoption of this measure. But the Senator is mistaken if he supposes that I charge upon him any indifference to Human Rights. Never, in any debate, has any word fallen from me which that Senator can so misinterpret. I know too well his heart, his excellent and abounding nature, his New-England home, to attribute to him any such indifference. But I do know full well, for the Senator has often declared it, that he acts under interpretations of the Constitution which it seems to me belong to the period anterior to the war rather than since the war. It seems to me--I may be mistaken, but I cannot help saying it--that the Senator has not yet recognized that greatest of all victories by which a new interpretation is fixed upon the National Constitution, so that hereafter all its sentences, all its phrases, all its words, shall be interpreted broadly and emphatically for Human Rights. How often have I been obliged to say this! But the Senator forgets that victory. There is his error. Most sincerely, most ardently, do I trust that the Senate will never forget it; I hope we shall duly act upon it, and celebrate it in our acts.

Sir, I have been betrayed into these remarks simply by way of answer to what has been said by my friend. I had hoped that this bill might be proceeded with without debate. I had trusted that this benign measure was so clear and refulgent with justice that no Senator would rise in his place to oppose it. I had indulged the longing that those especially in favor of amnesty for all would adopt that other greater and more comprehensive principle of justice for all. Strange, Sir, that the sensibilities of so many are aroused in favor of amnesty, and yet those same Senators are so dull when the rights of men are presented! I, Sir, am anxious to see universal amnesty; but with it must be asserted also universal justice. Our colored fellow-citizens must be admitted to complete equality before the law. In other words, everywhere, in everything regulated by law, they must be equal with all their fellow-citizens. There is the simple principle on which this bill stands. Who can impugn it? Who can throw upon it the shadow of question? Sir, if the Constitution of the United States does not sanction a bill like this, then forthwith should we proceed to amend that Constitution, and make it more worthy of our regard. Much as has been done, this bill must also be added to the trophies of Congressional action; this bill must be enumerated among the great results of our recent legislation. Terrible war will then have been a beneficent parent.

I hope, Sir, there can be no question on the subject.

The motion was not agreed to.

OUR PILGRIM FOREFATHERS.

SPEECH AT THE DINNER OF THE NEW-ENGLAND SOCIETY IN NEW YORK, DECEMBER 22, 1873.

After the customary toasts, _The Day we celebrate_, and _The
President of the United States_, the President of the Society, Mr.
Elliot C. Cowdin, in announcing the _Third Regular Toast_, said,--

“I give you, Gentlemen, _The Senate of the United States_.

“We are happy to greet, on this occasion, the senior in
consecutive service, and the most eminent member of the Senate,
whose early, varied, and distinguished services in the cause
of Freedom have made his name a household word throughout the
world,--the Honorable Charles Sumner.”

“On rising,” says the official report, “Mr. Sumner was received
with great cheering,--the members of the Society standing, waving
handkerchiefs, and in other ways expressing lively satisfaction.”

Mr. Sumner responded:--

MR. PRESIDENT AND BROTHERS OF NEW ENGLAND:--

For the first time in my life, I have the good fortune to enjoy this famous anniversary festival. Though often honored by your most tempting invitation, and longing to celebrate the day in this goodly company, of which all have heard so much, I could never excuse myself from duties in another place. If now I yield to well-known attractions, and journey from Washington for my first holiday during a protracted public service, it is because all was enhanced by the appeal of your excellent President, to whom I am bound by the friendship of many years in Boston, New York, and in a foreign land. (_Applause._) It is much to be a brother of New England, but it is more to be a friend (_applause_); and this tie I have pleasure in confessing to-night.

It is with much doubt and humility that I venture to answer for the Senate of the United States, and I believe the least I say on this head will be the most prudent. (_Laughter._) But I shall be entirely safe in expressing my doubt if there is a single Senator who would not be glad of a seat at this generous banquet. What is the Senate? It is a component part of the National Government. But we celebrate to-day more than any component part of any government. We celebrate an epoch in the history of mankind,--not only never to be forgotten, but to grow in grandeur as the world appreciates the elements of true greatness. Of mankind, I say: for the landing on Plymouth Rock, on the 22d of December, 1620, marks the origin of a new order of ages, by which the whole human family will be elevated. Then and there was the great beginning.

Throughout all time, from the dawn of history, men have swarmed to found new homes in distant lands. The Tyrians, skirting Northern Africa, stopped at Carthage; Carthaginians dotted Spain, and even the distant coasts of Britain and Ireland; Greeks gemmed Italy and Sicily with Art-loving settlements; Rome carried multitudinous colonies with her conquering eagles. Saxons, Danes, and Normans violently mingled with the original Britons. And in more modern times Venice, Genoa, Portugal, Spain, France, and England, all sent forth emigrants to people foreign shores. But in these various expeditions trade or war was the impelling motive. Too often commerce and conquest moved hand in hand, and the colony was incarnadined with blood.

On the day we celebrate, the sun for the first time in his course looked down upon a different scene, begun and continued under a different inspiration. A few conscientious Englishmen, in obedience to the monitor within, and that they might be free to worship God according to their own sense of duty, set sail for the unknown wilds of the North American continent. After a voyage of sixty-four days in the ship Mayflower, with Liberty at the prow and Conscience at the helm, (_applause_,) they sighted the white sand-banks of Cape Cod, and soon thereafter in the small cabin framed that brief compact, forever memorable, which is the first written constitution of government in human history, and the very corner-stone of the American Republic; and then these Pilgrims landed.

This compact was not only foremost in time, it was also august in character, and worthy of perpetual example. Never before had the object of the “civil body politic” been announced as “to enact, constitute, and frame such _just and equal laws_, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony.”[231] How lofty! how true! Undoubtedly these were the grandest words of government, with the largest promise, of any at that time uttered.

If more were needed to illustrate the new epoch, it would be found in the parting words of the venerable pastor, John Robinson, addressed to the Pilgrims, as they were about to sail from Delft-Haven,--words often quoted, yet never enough. How sweetly and beautifully he says: “And if God should reveal anything to you by any other instrument of His, be as ready to receive it as ever you were to receive any truth by my ministry; for I am very confident the Lord hath more truth and light yet to break forth out of His Holy Word.” And then how justly the good preacher rebukes those who close their souls to truth! “As, for example, the Lutherans, they cannot be drawn to go beyond what Luther saw,--for, whatever part of God’s will He hath further imparted and revealed to Calvin, they will rather die than embrace it; and so also you see the Calvinists, they stick where he left them,--a misery much to be lamented; for, though they were precious shining lights in their times, yet God had not revealed His whole will to them.”[232] Beyond the merited rebuke, here is a plain recognition of the law of Human Progress, little discerned at the time, which teaches the sure advance of the Human Family, and opens the vista of the ever-broadening, never-ending future on earth.

Our Pilgrims were few and poor. The whole outfit of this historic voyage, including £1,700 of trading-stock, was only £2,400;[233] and how little was required for their succor appears in the experience of the soldier Captain Miles Standish, who, being sent to England for assistance,--not military, but financial (God save the mark!),--succeeded in borrowing (how much do you suppose?) £150 sterling. (_Laughter._) Something in the way of help; and the historian adds, “though at fifty per cent” interest.[234] So much for a valiant soldier on a financial expedition. (_Laughter, in which General Sherman and the company joined._) A later agent, Allerton, was able to borrow for the Colony £200 at a reduced interest of thirty per cent.[235] Plainly, the money-sharks of our day may trace an undoubted pedigree to these London merchants. (_Laughter._) But I know not if any son of New England, oppressed by exorbitant interest, will be consoled by the thought that the Pilgrims paid the same.

And yet this small people,--so obscure and outcast in condition,--so slender in numbers and in means,--so entirely unknown to the proud and great,--so absolutely without name in contemporary records,--whose departure from the Old World took little more than the breath of their bodies,--are now illustrious beyond the lot of men; and the Mayflower is immortal beyond the Grecian Argo, or the stately ship of any victorious admiral. Though this was little foreseen in their day, it is plain now how it has come to pass. The highest greatness, surviving time and storm, is that which proceeds from the soul of man. (_Applause._) Monarchs and cabinets, generals and admirals, with the pomp of courts and the circumstance of war, in the gradual lapse of time disappear from sight; but the pioneers of Truth, though poor and lowly, especially those whose example elevates human nature and teaches the rights of man, so that Government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth (_great applause_),--such harbingers can never be forgotten, and their renown spreads coëxtensive with the cause they served.

I know not if any whom I now have the honor of addressing have thought to recall the great in rank and power filling the gaze of the world as the Mayflower with her company fared forth on their venturous voyage. The foolish James was yet on the English throne, glorying that he had “soundly peppered off the Puritans.”[236] The morose Louis the Thirteenth, through whom Richelieu ruled, was King of France. The imbecile Philip the Third swayed Spain and the Indies. The persecuting Ferdinand the Second, tormentor of Protestants, was Emperor of Germany. Paul the Fifth, of the House of Borghese, was Pope of Rome. In the same princely company, and all contemporaries, were Christian the Fourth, King of Denmark, and his son Christian, Prince of Norway; Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden; Sigismund the Third, King of Poland; Frederick, King of Bohemia, with his wife, the unhappy Elizabeth of England, progenitor of the House of Hanover; George William, Margrave of Brandenburg, and ancestor of the Prussian house that has given an emperor to Germany; Maximilian, Duke of Bavaria; Maurice, Landgrave of Hesse; Christian, Duke of Brunswick and Luneburg; John Frederick, Duke of Würtemberg and Teck; John, Count of Nassau; Henry, Duke of Lorraine; Albert, Archduke of Austria, and his wife Isabella, Infanta of Spain, joint rulers of the Low Countries; Maurice, fourth Prince of Orange, of the House of Nassau; Charles Emanuel, Duke of Savoy, and ancestor of the King of United Italy; Cosmo de’ Medici, fourth Grand Duke of Tuscany; Antonio Priuli, ninety-fifth Doge of Venice, just after the terrible tragedy commemorated on the English stage as “Venice Preserved”; Bethlen Gabor, Prince of Unitarian Transylvania, and elected King of Hungary with the countenance of an African; and the Sultan Osman the Second, of Constantinople, eighteenth ruler of the Turks.

Such at that time were the crowned sovereigns of Europe, whose names were mentioned always with awe, and whose countenances are handed down by Art, so that at this day they are visible to the curious as if they walked these streets. Mark now the contrast. There was no artist for our forefathers, nor are their countenances now known to men; but more than any powerful contemporaries at whose tread the earth trembled is their memory sacred. (_Applause._) Pope, emperor, king, sultan, grand-duke, duke, doge, margrave, landgrave, count,--what are they all by the side of the humble company that landed on Plymouth Rock? Theirs, indeed, were the ensigns of worldly power; but our Pilgrims had in themselves that inborn virtue which was more than all else besides, and their landing was an epoch.

Who in the imposing troop of worldly grandeur is now remembered but with indifference or contempt? If I except Gustavus Adolphus, it is because he revealed a superior character. Confront the Mayflower and the Pilgrims with the potentates who occupied such space in the world. The former are ascending into the firmament, there to shine forever, while the latter have been long dropping into the darkness of oblivion, to be brought forth only to point a moral or to illustrate the fame of contemporaries whom they regarded not. (_Applause._) Do I err in supposing this an illustration of the supremacy which belongs to the triumphs of the moral nature? At first impeded or postponed, they at last prevail. Theirs is a brightness which, breaking through all clouds, will shine forth with ever-increasing splendor.

I have often thought, that if I were a preacher, if I had the honor to occupy the pulpit so grandly filled by my friend near me, (_gracefully inclining toward Mr. Beecher_,) one of my sermons should be from the text, “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.”[237] Nor do I know a better illustration of these words than the influence exerted by our Pilgrims. That small band, with the lesson of self-sacrifice, of just and equal laws, of the government of a majority, of unshrinking loyalty to principle, is now leavening this whole continent, and in the fulness of time will leaven the world. (_Great applause._) By their example republican institutions have been commended; and in proportion as we imitate them will these institutions be assured. (_Applause._)

Liberty, which we so much covet, is not a solitary plant. Always by its side is Justice. (_Applause._) Yet Justice is nothing but Right applied to human affairs. Do not forget, I entreat you, that with the highest morality is the highest liberty. A great poet, in one of his inspired sonnets, speaking of this priceless possession, has said,

“For who loves that must first be wise and good.”[238]

Therefore do the Pilgrims in their beautiful example teach liberty, teach republican institutions,--as at an earlier day Socrates and Plato, in their lessons of wisdom, taught liberty and helped the idea of the republic. If republican government has thus far failed in any experiment, as, perhaps, somewhere in Spanish America, it is because these lessons have been wanting; there have been no Pilgrims to teach the Moral Law.

Mr. President, with these thoughts, which I imperfectly express, I confess my obligations to the forefathers of New England, and offer to them the homage of a grateful heart. But not in thanksgiving only would I celebrate their memory. I would, if I could, make their example a universal lesson, and stamp it upon the land. (_Applause._) The conscience which directed them should be the guide for our public councils; the just and equal laws which they required should be ordained by us; and the hospitality to Truth which was their rule should be ours. Nor would I forget their courage and steadfastness. Had they turned back or wavered, I know not what would have been the record of this continent, but I see clearly that a great example would have been lost. (_Applause._) Had Columbus yielded to his mutinous crew and returned to Spain without his great discovery, had Washington shrunk away disheartened by British power and the snows of New Jersey, these great instances would have been wanting for the encouragement of men. But our Pilgrims belong to the same heroic company, and their example is not less precious. (_Applause._)

Only a short time after the landing on Plymouth Rock, the great republican poet, John Milton, wrote his “Comus,” so wonderful for beauty and truth. His nature was more refined than that of the Pilgrims; and yet it requires little effort of imagination to catch from one of them, or at least from their beloved pastor, the exquisite, almost angelic words at the close:--

“Mortals, that would follow me,
Love Virtue: she alone is free;
She can teach ye how to climb
Higher than the sphery chime:
Or if Virtue feeble were,
Heaven itself would stoop to her.”

“At the conclusion of Senator Sumner’s speech,” says the report,
“the audience rose and gave cheer upon cheer.”

SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL-RIGHTS BILL: THE LAST APPEAL.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, JANUARY 27, 1874.

The Supplementary Civil-Rights Bill, introduced by Mr. Sumner on
the first day of the Session, having now come up for consideration,
and the question being on a motion by Mr. Ferry, of Connecticut, to
refer it to the Committee on the Judiciary, Mr. Sumner said:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--There is a very good reason, a very strong reason, why this bill should not be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and it is found in the history of the bill. I have in my hand a memorandum, which has been kindly prepared for me at the desk, disclosing details which Senators ought to bear in mind before they vote. By the Journals of the Senate it appears that as long ago as May 13, 1870,--

“Mr. Sumner asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to
bring in a bill supplementary to an Act entitled ‘An Act to protect
all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and furnish
the means of their vindication,’ passed April 9, 1866; which was
read the first and second times, by unanimous consent, referred to
the Committee on the Judiciary, and ordered to be printed.”

The next appearance of the bill is July 7th, of that year, when, according to the Journal, “Mr. Trumbull, from the Committee on the Judiciary,” with a large number of other bills reported this to the Senate, with a recommendation “that they ought not to pass.” The record says that--

“The Senate proceeded to consider the said bills as in Committee
of the Whole; and no amendment being made, they were severally
reported to the Senate.

“On motion by Mr. Trumbull,

“_Ordered_, That the said bills be postponed indefinitely.”

You will observe, Sir, the bill was treated in the lump with others, at the close of the session; and you have here the report of the very committee to which it is now proposed to refer it.

The next appearance of the bill is January 20, 1871, and the entry is as follows:--

“Mr. Sumner asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to
bring in a bill supplementary to an Act entitled ‘An Act to protect
all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and furnish
the means of their vindication,’ passed April 9, 1866; which was
read the first and second times, by unanimous consent, referred to
the Committee on the Judiciary, and ordered to be printed.”

February 15, 1871, “Mr. Trumbull, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom were referred the following bills [the present with others], reported them severally without amendment, and that they ought not to pass.”

There was no action of the Senate at the time; for you will bear in mind the lateness of the day in the session; and Senators cannot have forgotten the pressure of business at that time. That was sufficient reason against the consideration of the bill. Indeed, with all the assiduity that I could command, I was not able to obtain a hearing for it.

Then came the first session of the Forty-Second Congress, beginning March 4, 1871. Upon the Journal it appears, March 9, 1871,--

“Mr. Sumner asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to
bring in [this same bill, with one other], which were read the
first and second times, by unanimous consent, and ordered to lie on
the table and be printed.”

In introducing the bill this third time I stated that it had already been to the Judiciary Committee twice before; that it was to be presumed that they had carefully considered it; that they had reported it adversely; that they had not reported any amendment; that I did not think it advisable now to refer the bill to a committee which had twice recorded an adverse judgment; that the bill was well known to Senators; that it had been before the Senate a long time; and that under the circumstances I thought I should be justified in asking that it take its place on the Calendar and be printed. The order was made, and it held its place on the Calendar.

Shortly afterward a measure of general amnesty, it will be remembered, passed the House of Representatives and came to this Chamber. Then it was that I deemed it my duty to move this bill as an amendment, and you will remember the extended discussion that ensued,--how justice to the African race was contrasted with generosity to those who had struck at the life of the Republic, and it was insisted that our first duty was justice. The debate was protracted. Senators cannot have forgotten it; and more than once votes were had upon the pending amendment. I think it was twice carried by the casting vote of the Vice-President. Certainly it was attached to the bill for general amnesty, and the debate reached over weeks, during which time the Supplementary Civil-Rights Bill, as it came to be called, underwent amendment. It was modified in various particulars,--in none of great importance, in none of principle, but verbally; also in the penalties, and in the machinery: but the bill now stands, in principle and in substance, as it was when originally introduced. So far as it is changed, it is a change reached by debate in this Chamber. The Senate itself has been a Committee of the Whole sitting on this bill, superseding thereby the labors of any special committee.

Why, then, after two references to the Judiciary Committee should we have a third? Is it for delay? Is it in the hope of any light on this important subject which Senators have not already? Why, then, the reference? I can see no considerable or sufficient object, except one that we are compelled to recognize in this Chamber: can it be a mode of opposition by interposing time, delay?

Now, Sir, the bill is on the Calendar No. 1. It should have been the first acted upon this session; and if it was not acted upon first, there is no blame on me, for I tried to have you act upon it on one of the earliest days of this session, but I was resisted here by the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. FERRY], and the Senator from Maine [Mr. MORRILL]; the Senator from Connecticut insisting, then as now, that the bill should go to a committee. Now, Sir, I appeal to the Senate to take this important measure into its own hands at once and directly.

What is the use of a Committee? It is as eyes and ears to the Senate. How often do we repeat that saying! But who wants eyes and ears for the appreciation of this measure? Its character is manifest; its justice is confessed; it is in harmony with all that has been done to carry out the great results of the war; it is in harmony with the Declaration of Independence, and with the grand history of the Republic; it is in harmony with the Constitutional Amendments, and it is indeed necessary in order to their full enjoyment. The necessity is manifest every day in the outrages to which the colored race are exposed, not only in travel and at hotels, but still more in the children of their homes, who are shut out from those schools where they ought to receive practically, as well as by lesson, the great duty of Equality. The bill is an urgent necessity. There ought to be no delay. There should not be the postponement of a Committee, for the Committee is unnecessary. The Committee has already sat upon it once, twice: why a third time?

In the debate which ensued, Mr. Stewart, of Nevada, and Mr.
Edmunds, of Vermont (Chairman of the Judiciary Committee), among
others, participated, both urging the proposed reference, and the
latter in remarks replete with personality. Mr. Sumner responded as
follows:--

The Senator from Nevada has made a speech which is founded on oblivion of the past. The bill has been examined by the Judiciary Committee, and twice reported by them adversely without amendment.

MR. EDMUNDS. When was the last report?

MR. SUMNER. February 15, 1871.

MR. EDMUNDS. That was in the time of Trumbull.

MR. SUMNER. The Senator says, “That was in the time of Trumbull.” But it was reported adversely by the Judiciary Committee, of which my learned friend was a distinguished member, I think. I cannot mistake; he must have been on the Committee, a party to its report; and there was from him no minority voice, no opposition on this floor to the report of the Chairman. He allowed the Chairman to speak for the Committee, including himself.

But the Senator from Nevada, oblivious of this history, insists upon another reference. He wishes to put this bill through another dance. For what purpose? He has read the existing statute to which this is supplementary, and he thinks that the Committee ought to consider the aptitude of this bill to carry out the declared purpose. Why, Sir, I agree with him that such aptitude ought to exist, but do not forget that the bill has been before the Senate now nearly four years. Nearly four years has this bill, substantially as at this moment, been before the Senate, and twice before the Judiciary Committee.

Now, Sir, let us ascend from words to things. Why make another reference? Is it that it may find verbal place on your record that this bill was duly referred and duly reported? That is the only reason I can imagine; for the bill in its substance is well known to every Senator, and, I may add, is well known to every lawyer in the country. It has been discussed here again and again, day after day, and has been modified after discussion; and you now have the result of all the discussion and the modification. It is well known. It is familiar to the country. It has received the approbation of those who are most interested in it. It has been prayed for by petitioners without number. It has been commended at public meetings with an earnestness and an enthusiasm almost without parallel.

MR. EDMUNDS. May I ask the Senator a question?

MR. SUMNER. Certainly.

MR. EDMUNDS. I should like to ask my friend, the Senator from
Massachusetts, (as he is now speaking of the character of the bill,
which I did not care to refer to particularly,) where the jury is
summoned, and a man should happen to be convicted of murder or any
other crime under the State law, would it, or not, set aside the
verdict?

MR. SUMNER. The Senator will pardon me. I had not intended to touch
this branch of the debate.

MR. EDMUNDS. I merely wish to ask him what he understands to be the
character of the fourth section, supposing we pass it just as it
stands, and supposing a jury happens to be summoned contrary to the
provisions of the fourth section, but in accordance with the law of
the State.

MR. SUMNER. The effect of the violation of the law in that respect
need not be considered. It is sufficient that this section provides
a penalty against those who violate the law; such is its simple
object.

MR. EDMUNDS. Ah! but let me ask my friend, does it not also provide
what shall constitute a lawful jury?

MR. SUMNER. Very well,--and should it not so provide?

MR. EDMUNDS. Very well,--but my question is, What would be the
effect upon the trial of an indictment found by a grand jury not
composed in conformity to this motion?

MR. SUMNER. I will not presume to pronounce an opinion on that question. It is sufficient for me that the section is clear and explicit in imposing a penalty upon the party making the exclusion, and that is all the bill proposes. The other consequences may be, will be, for the determination of the courts. The question belongs to them; I doubt if it belongs to us. But the bill is open to amendment. Let the Senator move such as he thinks the case requires: I shall welcome it.

When the Senator interrupted me I was about to address myself to him; for I should not have risen this time but for the remarks which he made. I know not, Sir, why my position on this question should justify the personalities which the Senator from Vermont considers so essential to debate. I certainly made no allusion to him, nor do I claim anything for myself. I am an humble worker in this Chamber, and in this cause I have been laborious for years; but not on that account do I claim anything, nor do I make any pretence. I know not why the Senator should, with personality of manner and allusion, undertake to taunt me for the position that I occupy. Do I deserve it? I represent humbly the sentiments of the people of Massachusetts, who have sent me here now for many years. Always loyal to these sentiments I hope to be, even though it brings upon me the displeasure of the Senator. Sir, I am anxious to harmonize with that Senator. I know, too, his loyalty to this cause,--I do not doubt it; but I now appeal to that Senator to unite with me in speeding this great measure. Let him join sincerely, with his large intelligence, to hasten this bill before the Senate and make it the law of the land; so would he become a benefactor to a much-oppressed people.

Possibly he has his doubts in regard to the Jury provision. I know other lawyers have expressed doubts before; and from the inquiry that he made a moment ago it is perhaps fair to infer that those doubts haunt his mind. To that I simply answer, Happily they do not haunt mine. I know the Constitution of my country, and I know that under that Constitution, unless my judgment fails entirely, the provision with reference to juries is absolutely valid and constitutional. I challenge the discussion. Let the Senator make his objections. The original Civil-Rights Bill, which passed over the veto of the President, solemnly declares that no evidence shall be excluded from any court of justice, National or State, on account of color. The nation has undertaken to regulate the testimony, not only in its own Courts but in State Courts; and will any one pretend that it may not regulate the jury in State Courts, when it may regulate the testimony in State Courts? Why, Sir, there is nothing in the Constitution touching testimony, but there are no less than three distinct provisions relating to trial by jury; and among other terms employed is “an impartial jury,” which is among the privileges and immunities of the citizen. And is it wrong for Congress, in the plenitude of its powers, anxious to do justice to all, to declare that there shall be an impartial jury in all tribunals, whether National or State, without regard to color? Having begun by regulating the testimony, where is the argument which is to prevent us from regulating the jury? I need not remind my excellent friend that originally the witnesses and the jury were almost one and the same.

MR. EDMUNDS. They were precisely the same.

MR. SUMNER. Very well,--so much the better; and the Senator knows that there is a phrase handed down to us from English courts by which we are reminded constantly of the “witness-box” and the “jury-box.” So closely were they together that they come under a common nomenclature. Now I insist that they shall come under a common safeguard. We have already provided that there shall be no exclusion in testimony on account of color: we must also provide that there shall be no exclusion from the jury on account of color; and until that provision is made by supreme national law, not to be set aside, justice is not fully done.

But, Sir, I had no intention to discuss the character of this bill; and I have only been led into it by the allusion of the Senator, who, holding the bill in his hand, signalizes that section as open to criticism. Let him proceed with his criticism. But then I hope for better things. I hope my friend, instead of criticism, will give us that generous support which so well becomes him. He sees full well, that, until this great question is completely settled, the results of the war are not all secured, nor is this delicate and sensitive subject banished from these Halls. Sir, my desire, the darling desire, if I may say so, of my soul, at this moment, is to close forever this great question, so that it shall never again intrude into these Chambers,--so that hereafter in all our legislation there shall be no such words as “black” or “white,” but that we shall speak only of citizens and of men. Is not that an aspiration worthy of a Senator? Is such an aspiration any ground for taunt from the Senator of Vermont? Will he not, too, join in the aspiration and the endeavor to bring about that beneficent triumph? Let this be omitted now, let any part of this bill be dropped out now, and you leave the question for another Congress, to be pursued by other petitions, to be pressed by other Senators and Representatives; for, so long as injustice remains without redress, so long will there be men to petition, and so long, I trust, will there be Senators and Representatives to demand a remedy. I ask for all now.

At length, on the representation of Mr. Frelinghuysen, of New
Jersey, that, “by acquiescing with the other friends of the measure
in its reference to the Committee on the Judiciary, the Senator
from Massachusetts has it in his power to take from every opponent
of the bill any apology, reason, or excuse for opposing it,”
followed by the declaration, “I think we can give the Senator the
assurance that a fortnight will not pass without the bill being
reported,”--

Mr. Sumner inquiring,--“The Senator is a member of the Judiciary
Committee, I believe?”

MR. FRELINGHUYSEN. Yes, Sir.

MR. SUMNER. I accept his assurance and consent to the reference.

Mr. Edmunds, Chairman of the Committee, demurring to the proposed
agreement to report the bill within two weeks, suggested as a
substitute, “its consideration with the promptness that the
business of the Committee will allow,” which Mr. Frelinghuysen
pronouncing “equally satisfactory,” it was tacitly so settled,--Mr.
Howe, of Wisconsin, thereupon observing, “I think the assurances we
have from the Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from Vermont
are a sufficient guaranty that the bill will get back here in good
season.”

MR. SUMNER. And in good condition. (_Laughter._)

MR. EDMUNDS. Much better than it is now. (_Laughter._)

Mr. Morton of Indiana subsequently remarking,--

I do not myself feel that there is any great importance in
referring this bill to a committee, for the reason that the
question has been so long before the Senate and has been so
amply discussed. But still that is the usage of the Senate; we
do that with regard to all bills unless under some very strong
emergency; and if the Senator had consented in the first place
to the reference of the bill, we should have had it back long
ago. So, I think, he has nobody to blame but himself that this
bill is not now before the Senate to be acted upon. But I may
be allowed to express the hope, and I have no reason to doubt
that it will be gratified, that the Judiciary Committee will
promptly examine this bill, and report back a Civil-Rights Bill
upon which the Senate can take action before long. I think that
ought to be done for very many considerations,--

Mr. Sumner replied:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--I should not say another word, except for the ardor with which my friend from Indiana comes forward to throw a little blame on me. He thinks, that, if I had consented to an earlier reference of this bill, it would now be in order before the Senate; but he says that in a case of strong emergency bills are not referred to committees. Now I ask the Senator from Indiana if this is not a case of strong emergency? The bill has been pending nearly four solid years, during all which time a portion of our fellow-citizens, counted by the million, have been exposed to indignity; and because I tried to speed the result, hoping to bring the Senate to a generous conclusion of the whole measure without a reference to the Committee, the Senator from Indiana thus tardily seeks to rebuke me. If I erred at all, it was because I trusted the Senate. I felt, that, with this bill on the Calendar and within reach, it could not hesitate. I was unwilling to see the bill in a committee-room, where the Senate, in a generous moment, could not take it up any day, and, so far as the Senate was concerned, make it the law of the land. I put too much faith in this body, which I ought to know well. I did, Sir, have generous trust. I did believe that at some early day the bill would be considered and adopted. I have been disappointed. More than once I have tried to reach it, I have tried to bring it before the Senate; but you know well the impediments; you know that other important matters have occupied attention, so that I could not, with any reasonable chance of success, seek to press this important measure. That, Sir, is the occasion for delay; and I do not think--I hardly like to make any question with my friend--but I do not think he was generous in the imputation that he sought to throw upon me. Had that Senator, on the first day of the session, or when I made an effort at a later day to bring it up, come forward then to aid me in pressing it on the attention of the Senate,--had he reminded the Senate and the country how many fellow-citizens were shut out from their rights, and that a denial of rights does not allow delay,--had these words come from the Senator at that time, ah! we should have been having no such debate as has occurred to-day. The bill would have been hastened on its way, and a people long enslaved and degraded would be at last lifted to equality.

The question being now put, the bill was referred to the Committee
on the Judiciary without objection.

March 11, 1874, Mr. Sumner died.

April 14th his bill was reported back by Mr. Frelinghuysen from the
Committee with an amendment in the form of a substitute,--being
substantially the original bill taken into a new draught, with
a few differences of machinery. In this form, after long and
exhaustive debate, it was passed in the Senate, May 22d, by Yeas
29, Nays 16.

In the House, all efforts to take it up were frustrated by the
minority, under the rule requiring a two-thirds vote for this
purpose, until the closing hours of the succeeding session, March
3, 1875, when a vote was obtained referring it to the Committee on
the Judiciary, but too late for action, and the bill fell with the
expiration of the Congress.

Meanwhile, however, February 3d, Mr. Butler, of Massachusetts,
had reported a bill from this Committee, covering the provisions
of the Senate bill, with the exception only of that relating to
cemeteries, but with the addition to that on Common Schools of the
proviso,--

“That if any State or the proper authorities in any
State, having the control of Common Schools or other public
institutions of learning aforesaid, shall establish and
maintain separate schools and institutions giving equal
educational advantages in all respects for different classes of
persons entitled to attend such schools and institutions, such
schools and institutions shall be a sufficient compliance with
the provisions of this section so far as they relate to schools
and institutions of learning.”

On proceeding to a vote, the next day, February 14th, the entire
clause, embracing Common Schools, public institutions of learning
or benevolence, and national agricultural colleges, together with
this proviso, was, on motion of Mr. Kellogg, of Connecticut, struck
out by Ayes 123, Noes 48,--a call for the Yeas and Nays, which
would have brought out the names, being refused. A previous motion
by Mr. Cessna, of Pennsylvania, to substitute the full text of the
Senate bill for that of the House Committee, now recurring, was
defeated by Yeas 114, Nays 148,--and the latter, amended as above
stated, was then passed by Yeas 162, Nays 100,--and subsequently,
February 27th, in the Senate also, by Yeas 38, Nays 26,--and March
1st received the approval of the Executive.

This bill, entitled “An Act to protect all citizens in their
civil and legal rights,”[239] has since stood on the statute
book as a finality,--these rights, in the terms of the statute,
consisting of “the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations,
advantages, facilities, and privileges of [1st] inns, [2d] public
conveyances on land or water, [3d] theatres, and other places of
public amusement”; to which another section, rising to a higher
plane, adds the declaration [4th] “That no citizen possessing all
other qualifications which are or may be prescribed by law shall
be disqualified for service as grand or petit juror in any court
of the United States, or of any State, on account of race, color,
or previous condition of servitude,”--with such security to the
colored citizens of this inestimable right as may be found in the
provision that “any officer or other person, charged with any duty
in the selection or summoning of jurors, who shall exclude or fail
to summon any citizen for the cause aforesaid, shall, on conviction
thereof, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and be fined _not more_
than five thousand dollars.”

FOOTNOTES

[1] Case of Plau, French Consul-General at New York.

[2] April 30, 1864: A Bill to provide for the greater Efficiency of the Civil-Service of the United States. Congressional Globe, 38th Cong. 1st Sess., p. 1985; also, _ante_, Vol. XI. p. 278, seqq.

[3] Times, December 31, 1870. Executive Documents, 42d Cong. 2d Sess., H. of R., No. 1, Foreign Relations, p. 368.

[4] James, iii. 17.

[5] Speech, February 14th: Congressional Globe, 42d Cong. 2d Sess., p. 1016.

For the portion of the Speech referred to, setting forth the authorities on this subject, see Appendix (A), pp. 41-44.

[6] Law of Nations, p. 281.

[7] 7 Wheaton, R., 487.

[8] See Appendix (A), pp. 43, 44.

[9] House Reports, 40th Cong. 2d Sess., No. 64, p. 5.

[10] Merchant of Venice, Act iv. Sc. 1.

[11] Letter of Treasurer Spinner to Senator Wilson, February 16, 1872: Congressional Globe, 42d Cong. 2d Sess., p. 1072.

[12] Commentaries on American Law, Vol. I. p. 128.