stand that Proviso, it was simply a prohibition of Slavery in the Territories. Now I know not whether the Senator held, as I did, that, even without that prohibition, yet, by a strict interpretation of the Constitution, Slavery could not go into the Territories. I presume he did; most of us did. For myself, I held it resolutely and sincerely. I always regarded the Wilmot Proviso, if the Constitution were properly interpreted, as mere surplusage, sheer supererogation; and yet I never hesitated, in season or out of season, to vindicate it; and I believe the Senator never hesitated, in season or out of season, to do the same. I remember that my earliest admiration of that Senator was founded on his brave and able support of that very prohibition. Not then was he deterred from a humane provision because without it, according to his interpretation of the Constitution, Slavery could not enter the Territories. Nor was he deterred because the provision might be offensive to persons of weak nerves. No, Sir; openly and courageously he maintained the principle that Slavery must be prohibited. And on the same principle — if I may pass from great things to smaller, I admit, but not small -I insist that this proviso should also be adopted.

Our experience shows that the law as the Senator expounds it is not so accepted by this railroad corporation. He knows as well as I that colored persons are daily insulted. Some of these victims will compare in respectability of conduct with any whom I now have the honor to address. My colleague alluded to a colored clergyman whom he saw thrust out only the other day. We know of an officer of the United States, wearing the national uniform, thrust out; and the Senator from Illinois will allow all these things to be done, and not in

terfere. He tells us that it is contrary to law, and yet he allows it to proceed under the very eyes of the Senate. Sir, I insist that the Senate, when such outrage occurs, shall show that it has power, and is willing to exercise it on the side of justice.

But the Senator reminds us that in other days the Fugitive Act was passed here, and made especially offensive; and he pleads with us not to imitate that bad example, by introducing anything that may be offensive. I do not like the comparison of the Senator. Does he not know well that everything introduced into the Fugitive Slave Bill was in the interest of Slavery, and contrary to every sentiment of humanity, and that it was intended to give offence? The proposition now moved is opposite in character. It is to sustain the principles of humanity, to uphold human rights, to vindicate human equality, and with no purpose of offence,-none, not the least. The illustration of the Senator is entirely out of place. True it is that in those other days we were offended, and it was part of the hardships to which we were exposed. As, in the days which preceded our Revolution, the British officers said they would cram the stamps down the throats of the American people, so, in the same malignant spirit, the Slave-Masters insisted upon cramming Slavery down the throats of the Senate and the country. There was nothing but brutality then. Slavery in all its features is bad, but one of its most odious manifestations was the revolting insensibility to every sentiment of delicacy and humanity which it created in its supporters.

Sir, the Senator from Illinois knows well that it is in a very different spirit that propositions like the present are brought forward. It is always in the interest

of human rights, and I need not say to that Senator, so far as I am concerned, with no other purpose than that patent in the proposition itself, and with no idea of offending any human being, -on the contrary, with a desire to avoid offence, if I possibly can. In that spirit I wish to do my duty on this floor. I would never give offence to any one, here or elsewhere, if I knew how to avoid it, while in all things I faithfully discharge my public duty.

The debate continued, when Mr. Grimes, of Iowa, said he should like to have Mr. Sumner answer one question. "Suppose we pass this amendment and put it into the law, and the Company goes on and does exactly as it has been doing, excluding these men, what are these colored men going to do? Have they not got to go to law then? Will they not be compelled to enforce their rights in court? Will they not be compelled to employ lawyers? If that be so, what advantage will it be to them to adopt this amendment under the present condition of things?"

MR. SUMNER. I will answer. Because the Company will not dare to continue this outrage in the face and eyes of a positive provision of statute. That is the answer.

On the Yeas and Nays, the amendment was lost, Yeas 14, Nays 16, — several Republicans uniting with the Democrats against it.

At the next stage of the bill, Mr. Sumner renewed his amendment, when it was adopted, - Yeas 17, Nays 16. The bill passed the Senate, and was the subject of conference between the two Houses, but it never became a law.

January 17, 1865, the Senate having under consideration the bill to incorporate the Baltimore and Washington Depot and Potomac Ferry Railway Company, Mr. Sumner moved the same amendment, which was adopted, Yeas 24, Nays 6. This bill was passed by the Senate, but it never became a law.

February 4, 1865, the Senate having under consideration a bill to amend the charter of the Metropolitan Railroad Company, Mr. Sumner moved the following amendment :

"That the provision prohibiting any exclusion from any car on account of color, already applicable to the Metropolitan Railroad, is hereby extended to every other railroad in the District of Columbia."

This amendment became necessary in order to reach the Washington and Georgetown Railroad Company. It was opposed by Mr. Dixon, of Connecticut, Mr. Conness, of California, and Mr. Hale, of New Hampshire, the last regarding it in the nature of general legislation on a private act. Mr. Sumner replied, that it was needed, in order to bring the Metropolitan Railroad on an equality with the other roads, inasmuch as Congress had already imposed the prohibition upon that road; and, secondly, that it was germane, inasmuch as the Senate might engraft upon any railroad charter any proposition, special or general, concerning the subject-matter.

The amendment was lost, - Yeas 19, Nays 20.

At the next stage of the bill, Mr. Sumner renewed his amendment. February 6th, Mr. Dixon, Chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia, withdrew his opposition, saying: "I opposed it on the ground that it seemed to conflict with the rights of another Company, not now before the Senate [the Washington and Georgetown Railroad Company]; but since that time I have seen the managers and controllers of that Company, and find that they are unwilling to contend on this subject with what they consider to be the public opinion. They therefore make no objection to it, and I shall make none."

The amendment was adopted, Yeas 26, Nays 10. The bill as amended passed the House and was approved by the President, so that it became illegal for any railroad in the District of Columbia to exclude any person from any car on account of color.

The Washington and Georgetown Railroad did not promptly recognize the law. Colored persons were excluded from their cars, when Mr. Sumner addressed a letter to the President of the road, calling attention to the contumacy of the Company, and announcing his purpose, if it continued, to move, at the next session of Congress, the forfeiture of the charter. At the same time he addressed a communication to the District Attorney, asking him to proceed against the Company. At last the law was recognized, and from that date all the street-cars of Washington have been open to colored persons.

WRONG AND UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF FUGITIVE

SLAVE ACTS.

REPORT IN THE SENATE OF THE COMMITTEE ON SLAVERY AND FREEDMEN, FEBRUARY 29, 1864.

FEBRUARY 29, 1864, Mr. Sumner reported from the Committee on Slavery and Freedmen a bill to repeal all acts for the rendition of fugitive slaves. Accompanying this bill was the following report, of which ten thousand extra copies were ordered to be printed for the use of the Senate, together with the views of the minority, by Mr. Buckalew.

The debate on this subject, and the final repeal of all Fugitive Slave Acts, appear at a later date.1

THE Select Committee on Slavery and the Treatment of Freedmen, to whom were referred sundry petitions asking for the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, and also asking for the repeal of all acts for the rendition of fugitive slaves, have had the same under consideration, and ask leave to make the following report.

WO Fugitive Slave Acts still exist unrepealed on

TWO

our statute-book. The first, dated as long ago as 1793, was preceded by an official correspondence, supposed to show necessity for legislation.2 The second, belonging to the compromises of 1850, was introduced by a report from Mr. Butler, of South Carolina, at that time Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the Sen

1 Post, pp. 403-418.

2 American State Papers, Miscellaneous, Vol. I. pp. 38-43.